Table 3.
Nutrition indicators across urban and rural Tanzania
| Nutrition indicators | Urban % | Rural % | Geography disadvantage | Wealth disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women BMI thin | 8 | 13 | Rurala | Low WQ |
| Women BMI normal | 56 | 72 | Urban | Low WQ |
| Women BMI overweight/obese | 36 | 15 | Urban | High WQ |
| Anemia mild | 30 | 29 | Urban | Low WQ* |
| Anemia moderate | 12 | 9 | Urban | High WQ* |
| Anemia severe | 1 | 1 | – | Low WQ* |
| Anemia any | 44 | 39 | Urbana | High WQ* |
| Low birth weight | 9.1 | 5.8 | Urban | High WQ |
| Child size at birth (very small) | 3.7 | 1.3 | Urban | High WQ |
| Child size at birth (smaller than average) | 7.7 | 6.2 | Urban | Low WQ* |
| Child stuntingb | 32 | 45 | Rurala | Low WQ |
| Child wasting | 5 | 5 | – | Low WQ |
| Child underweight | 11 | 17 | Rurala | Low WQ |
Wealth quintiles with * showcase a small difference between the lowest and highest wealth quintiles. The difference was less than 3%. The DHS data is used for consistency across indicators, although some variables are recorded in other National datasets, such as HMIS and the National Census
WQ wealth quintile
aStatistically significant difference
bBased on new global growth standards [47]