There are errors in the Funding statement. The publisher apologizes for the errors. The correct Funding statement is as follows: This study was funded by United Nations World Food Programme, Nepal. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors AR, MRM, PKC and NMS who designed and implemented the study. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. Aside from funding salaries and paying implementation costs, United Nations World Food Programme did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Partial funding of author HHF during the write-up period was funded by a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship. Grant number: 210894/Z/18/Z.
The ORCID iD is missing for the third author. Author Helen A. Harris Fry’s ORCID iD is: 0000-0003-2367-908X (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2367-908X).
Due to typographical errors in the underlying data, there are errors throughout the article in the reporting of the food consumption score (FCS), the percentage of households consuming adequate Minimum Dietary Diversity of Women (MDD-W) food groups in the last seven days, and the mean score for the households consuming Minimum Dietary Diversity of Women (MDDW) food groups for seven days. The correct percentage of households with an acceptable food consumption score (FCS) over 7 days is 61%. These errors are present in Table 1. Please see the correct Table 1 here.
Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of respondents in household and acceptability surveys.
| Household Survey (N = 195) | Acceptability study (N = 168) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Categories | Median (IQR) | Median (IQR) |
| Age (years) | 45.0 (30.0, 60.0) | 27.5 (20.0, 35.5) | |
| % (n) | % (n) | ||
| Gender | Women | 34.6 (67) | 42.9 (72) |
| Men | 65.4 (128) | 57.1 (96) | |
| Caste group | Hill Brahman/Chhetri | 63.5 (124) | 63.7 (107) |
| Hill Dalit | 16.3 (32) | 22.0 (37) | |
| Thakuri | 8.9 (17) | 11.9 (20) | |
| Hill Janjati | 8.6 (17) | 1.8 (3) | |
| Muslim | 2.7 (5) | 0.0 (0) | |
| Others (Sanyashi, Dasnami) | 0.0 (0) | 0.6 (1) | |
| Education | Never went to school | 41.8 (82) | 26.2 (44) |
| Primary to lower secondary | 38.6 (75) | 40.5 (68) | |
| Secondary and above | 19.6 (38) | 33.3 (56) | |
| Religion | Hindu | 88.7 (173) | 98.8 (166) |
| Muslim | 2.7 (5) | 0 (0) | |
| Buddhist | 8.6 (17) | 1.2 (2) | |
| Household size | 0–5 | 34.2 (67) | 32.1 (54) |
| 6–10 | 54.4 (106) | 61.9 (104) | |
| > = 11 | 11.4 (22) | 6.0 (10) | |
| Ownership of toilet | No | 5.4 (11) | 3.6 (6) |
| Yes | 94.6 (184) | 96.4 (162) | |
| Wealth tertiles | Lower | 33.1 (65) | 33.3 (56) |
| Middle | 33.6 (65) | 33.3 (56) | |
| Higher | 33.3 (65) | 33.3 (56) | |
| Ownership of livestock | Yes | 94.2 (184) | 91.1 (153) |
| No | 5.8 (11) | 8.9 (15) | |
| Has cattle | 91.6 (179) | 85.1 (143) | |
| Has buffaloes | 28.4 (56) | 47.6 (80) | |
| Has sheep/goats | 50.9 (99) | 47.0 (79) | |
| Food security as measured by the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) | Food secure to mildly insecure | 35.5 (69) | 41.7 (70) |
| Moderate to severe | 64.5 (126) | 58.3 (98) | |
| Food consumption score (FCS) | Poor (0–28) | 13.5 (27) | 9.5 (16) |
| Borderline (28.5–42) | 25.8 (50) | 30.4 (51) | |
| Acceptable (>42.5) | 60.6 (118) | 60.1 (101) | |
| Purchases subsidized rice | 83.5 (163) | 100.0 (168) | |
| Purchases non-subsidized rice | 74.9 (146) | 42.9 (72) | |
| Indicators using food groups out of the 10 in the Dietary Diversity for Woman score (MDD-W) | |||
| Adequacy of MDD-W Food groups consumed by the household in last 24h | Inadequate <5 groups | 79.3 (155) | 80.4 (135) |
| Adequate > = 5 groups | 20.7 (40) | 19.6 (33) | |
| Adequacy of MDD-W Food groups consumed by the household in last 7days | Inadequate <5 groups | 38.0 (74) | 41.1 (69) |
| Adequate > = <5 groups | 62.0 (121) | 58.9 (99) | |
| Mean (SD) MDD-W Food groups consumed by the household in last 24h | 3.3 (1.4) | 3.5 (1.6) | |
| Mean (SD) MDD-W Food groups consumed by the household in last 7 days | 4.9 (1.8) | 5.3 (2.2) | |
Reference
- 1.Rai A, Maharjan MR, Harris Fry HA, Chhetri PK, Wasti PC, Saville NM (2019) Consumption of rice, acceptability and sensory qualities of fortified rice amongst consumers of social safety net rice in Nepal. PLoS ONE 14(10): e0222903 10.1371/journal.pone.0222903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]