Table 3.
Prevalence of wasting at baseline and endline by area and marginalisation status
| Area 1: Control | Area 2: PLA and home visits | Area 3: Crèches, PLA and home visits | Effect of PLA and home visits vs control (adjusted ORb) |
p | Effect of crèches, PLA and home visits vs control (adjusted ORb) |
p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 1214 | 1190 | 1315 | ||||
| All children | 280 (23.1) | 327 (27.5) | 314 (23.9) | ||||
| Most marginaliseda | 114 (25.0) | 127 (28.9) | 152 (29.1) | ||||
| Less marginalised | 166 (21.9) | 200 (26.7) | 162 (20.4) | ||||
| Endline | 1048 | 1201 | 1147 | ||||
| All children | 282 (26.9) | 277 (23.1) | 249 (21.7) | ||||
| Most marginalised | 115 (33.0) | 89 (23.7) | 82 (21.0) | 0.53 (0.34-0.82) | 0.005 | 0.44 (0.28-0.69) | < 0.0011 |
| Less marginalised | 167 (23.9) | 188 (22.8) | 167 (22.1) | 0.73 (0.52-1.03) | 0.074 | 1.01 (0.71-1.43) | 0.972 |
a Most marginalised defined as belonging to tribal families from the two poorest wealth quintiles
b Adjusted for baseline differences in wasting, child age in months (continuous), tribal/caste status (categorical), ownership of MNREGA card (binary), any maternal education (binary), asset quintile (categorical), district (categorical, fixed effect) and clustering (random effect)
1 Exact p = 0.003