Skip to main content
. 2024 Jan 5;10:1271931. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1271931

Table 2.

Effect of the intervention on anemia and MNP coverage.

Outcome Baseline (N = 6,892) Midline (N = 4,807) Endline (N = 5,237) Risk ratio (95% CI) and value of p
Midline vs. Baseline Endline vs. Baseline
n (%) [x̄] n (%) [x̄] n (%) [x̄] Unadjusted Adjusted* Unadjusted Adjusted*
Anemia [x̄ hemoglobin g/dL] 3,196 (46.6) [10.96] 1,538 (32.1) [11.31] 1,630 (31.2) [11.20] 0.69 (0.64–0.74) p < 0.001 0.66 (0.62–0.71) p < 0.001 0.67 (0.64–0.71) p < 0.001 0.68 (0.64–0.71) p < 0.001
Coverage
Message coverage – child’s caregiver ever heard about MNP 3,000 (43.5) 3,028 (63.0) 4,746 (90.6) 1.44 (1.37–1.52) p < 0.001 1.42 (1.34–1.50) p < 0.001 2.07 (1.98–2.16) p < 0.001 2.04 (1.95–2.13) p < 0.001
Contact coverage – child ever consumed food with MNP 1,671 (24.3) 1,773 (36.9) 3,609 (68.9) 1.51 (1.40–1.64) p < 0.001 1.48 (1.37–1.61) p < 0.001 2.80 (2.63–2.98) p < 0.001 2.76 (2.59–2.94) p < 0.001
Effective coverage – consumed 3 or more sachets of MNP in past 7 days 123 (1.8) 217 (4.6) 603 (11.5) 2.51 (1.89–3.34) p < 0.001 2.69 (2.03–3.58) p < 0.001 6.38 (5.02–8.11) p < 0.001 6.15 (4.82–7.85) p < 0.001

*Adjusting for child’s age and sex, platform, and household wealth quintile.