Table 5. Effect of intervention on AM outcomes assessed by cross-sectional study.
| Baseline | Endline | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison | Intervention | Comparison | Intervention | Δ | 95% CI | p-Value | |
| n = 1,148 | n = 1,153 | n = 1,159 | n = 1,154 | ||||
| AM prevalence (primary outcome) | 172 (15%) | 188 (16%) | 169 (15%) | 156 (14%) | −1.31a | (−4.2, 1.6) | 0.37* |
| MAM prevalence | 141 (12%) | 155 (13%) | 128 (11%) | 123 (11%) | −0.43a | (−3.0, 2.1) | 0.75 |
| SAM prevalence | 31 (2.7%) | 33 (2.9%) | 41 (3.5%) | 33 (2.9%) | −0.79a | (−2.3, 0.76) | 0.30 |
| WLZ | −0.78 ± 1.00 | −0.74 ± 1.00 | −0.73 ± 1.01 | −0.61 ± 0.98 | 0.10b | (0.01, 0.20) | 0.034 |
| MUAC, mm | 138 ± 11 | 138 ± 11 | 137 ± 11 | 138 ± 11 | 0.92b | (−0.18, 2.02) | 0.10 |
Data are n(%) or mean ± SD. AM, acute malnutrition; CI, confidence interval; ICC, intracluster correlation coefficient; MAM, moderate acute malnutrition; MUAC, mid-upper arm circumference; SAM, severe acute malnutrition; WLZ, weight-for-length Z-score.
*Not statistically significant after correcting for multiple testing of primary outcomes, using a pcritical = 0.025 calculated using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. ICC for primary outcomes are presented in S2 Table.
aDifference between intervention and comparison arm expressed in percentage points analyzed using a mixed-effect linear probability model with health center as random effect and sampling strata, health district, child sex, child age and whether the child was the first liveborn, the cluster means of the outcome at baseline, and intervention as fixed effects.
bDifference between intervention and comparison analyzed using a linear mixed- model with health center as random effect and sampling strata, health district, child sex, child age, whether the child was the first liveborn, cluster means of the outcome at baseline, and intervention as fixed effects.