Table 3.
Women and children nutrition status across the rural–urban continuum
| Indicators | Urban% | Periurban% | Rural% | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Sample size (n) | (n=66) | (n=59) | (n=54) | |
| WDDS ≥6 (highest food diversity) |
11 | 8 | 15 | 0.555* | |
| WDDS<6 (medium and lowest food diversity) |
89 | 92 | 85 | ||
| Children | Sample size (n) | (n=37) | (n=48) | (n=48) | |
| Wasted (WHZ<−2 SD)a |
16 | 6 | 2 | 0.032** | |
| Stunted (HAZ<−2 SD)a |
11 | 31 | 29 | ||
| Underweight (WAZ<−2 SD)a |
5 | 19 | 15 |
*
Tested by Pearson chi-square (expected cell count>5);
**
tested by Fischer exact (expected cell count<5).
a
There was a statistically significant association at 95% confidence level between child wasting, stunting and underweight and their location (rural, periurban and urban).