Table 3.
The relationship of fathers' knowledge and practices of child care and feeding with children's minimum dietary diversity in the urban and rural districts
| Variables | Urban | Rural | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 420 | N = 420 | |||||||
| Frequency | Minimum dietary diversity | Frequency | Minimum dietary diversity | |||||
| <MDD | ≥MDD | <MDD | ≥MDD | |||||
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | OR (95% CI) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Fathers' knowledge of the consequences of malnutrition | ||||||||
| Poor | 154 (37%) | 114 (74%) | 40 (26%) | 340 (81%) | 157 (46%) | 183 (54%) | ||
| Good | 266 (63%) | 189 (71%) | 77 (29%) | 1.16 (0.74–1.81) | 80 (19%) | 37 (46%) | 43 (54%) | 0.99 (0.61–1.62) |
| Fathers' knowledge of the important things to keep the child healthy | ||||||||
| Poor | 286 (68) | 230 (80%) | 56 (20%) | 91 (21%) | 58 (64%) | 32 (36%) | ||
| Good | 134 (32%) | 73 (54%) | 61 (46%) | 3.34 (2.19–5.37)*** | 330 (79%) | 136 (41%) | 194 (59%) | 2.58 (1.59–4.19)*** |
| Fathers' knowledge of the important food groups | ||||||||
| Poor | 252 (60%) | 215 (85%) | 37 (15%) | 160 (38%) | 122 (76%) | 38 (24%) | ||
| Good | 168 (40%) | 88 (52%) | 80 (48%) | 5.28 (3.32–8.38)*** | 260 (62%) | 72 (28%) | 188 (72%) | 8.38 (5.32–13.2)*** |
| Fathers' knowledge of child care | ||||||||
| Poor | 321 (76%) | 257 (80%) | 64 (20%) | 197 (47%) | 118 (60%) | 79 (40%) | ||
| Good | 99 (24%) | 46 (46%) | 53 (54%) | 4.62 (2.86–7.48)*** | 223 (53%) | 76 (34%) | 147 (66%) | 2.88 (1.94–4.29)*** |
| Fathers' practice in routine child care activities | ||||||||
| Poor | 253 (61%) | 200 (79%) | 53 (21%) | 92 (22%) | 52 (57%) | 40 (43%) | ||
| Good | 160 (39%) | 99 (62%) | 61 (38%) | 2.32 (1.49–3.61)*** | 320 (78%) | 137 (43%) | 183 (57%) | 1.73 (1.08–2.77)* |
| Fathers' practice in child provision | ||||||||
| Poor | 209 (52%) | 175 (84%) | 34 (16%) | 153 (38%) | 58 (38%) | 95 (62%) | ||
| Good | 195 (48%) | 117 (60%) | 78 (40%) | 3.43 (2.15–5.46)*** | 255 (62%) | 128 (50%) | 127 (50%) | 0.60 (0.40–0.91)* |
| Fathers' practice in child feeding | ||||||||
| Poor | 191 (48%) | 161 (84%) | 30 (16%) | 199 (49%) | 94 (47%) | 105 (53%) | ||
| Good | 208 (52%) | 127 (61%) | 81 (39%) | 3.42 (2.12–5.52)*** | 211 (51%) | 95 (45%) | 116 (55%) | 1.09 (0.74–1.61) |
| Educational status of father | ||||||||
| Primary | 135 (34%) | 110 (82%) | 25 (18%) | 146 (84%) | 75 (51%) | 71 (49%) | ||
| Secondary | 198 (50%) | 139 (70%) | 59 (30%) | 1.86 (1.09–3.17) | 25 (15%) | 9 (36%) | 16 (64%) | 1.87 (0.78–4.52) |
| >Secondary | 64 (16%) | 35 (54%) | 29 (46%) | 3.64 (1.89–7.01)*** | 2 (1%) | 1 (50%) | 1 (50%) | 1.05 (0.06–17.2) |
| Occupation of father | ||||||||
| Farmer and labourer | 162 (39%) | 140 (86%) | 22 (14%) | 404 (97%) | 184 (46%) | 220 (55%) | ||
| Merchant | 85 (20%) | 56 (66%) | 29 (34%) | 3.29 (1.74–6.21) | 4 (1%) | 3 (75%) | 1 (25%) | 0.27 (0.02–2.70) |
| Government worker | 172 (41%) | 106 (62%) | 66 (38%) | 3.96 (2.29–6.83)*** | 10 (2%) | 6 (60%) | 4 (40%) | 0.55 (0.15–2.00) |
| Monthly income | ||||||||
| Low | 123 (30%) | 104 (85%) | 19 (15%) | 129 (31%) | 57 (44%) | 72 (56%) | ||
| Middle | 117 (28%) | 90 (77%) | 27 (23%) | 1.64 (0.856–3.15) | 31 (7%) | 16 (52%) | 15 (48%) | 0.74 (0.34–1.68) |
| High | 24 (6%) | 10 (42%) | 14 (58%) | 7.66 (2.971–19.8)*** | 146 (35%) | 65 (45%) | 81 (55%) | 0.99 (0.62–1.59) |
| Very high | 151 (36%) | 95 (63%) | 56 (37%) | 3.23 (1.789–5.82)*** | 111 (27%) | 54 (49%) | 57 (51) | 0.84 (0.50–1.39) |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. For the outcome variable, <MDD refers to children who got less than four food groups in their diet the day before the survey and ≥MDD refers to children who got four or more food groups in their the day before the survey. On educational status of the father and mother, the category primary refers to grade 1–8, secondary refers to grade 9–12, >secondary refers to diploma and above. Statistically significant at *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. For knowledge and practice variables, the median was calculated for all participants and then applied to both rural and urban. The relative cut‐off point that was used to differentiate fathers with good knowledge/practice vs. poor knowledge/practice, fathers who answered the median and above were considered as good knowledge/practice. The income classification was based upon quantile calculation.