TABLE 3.
Effect of ACGG and ACGG/ATONU interventions on chicken management practices at midline (9 mo)1
| ACGG vs. Control | ACGG/ATONU vs. Control | ACGG/ATONU vs. ACGG | ACGG vs. Control | ACGG/ATONU vs. Control | ACGG/ATONU vs. ACGG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control n = 307 | ACGG n = 242 | ACGG/ATONU n = 242 | Unadjusted RR or mean difference (95% CI) | Unadjusted RR or mean difference (95% CI) | Unadjusted RR or mean difference (95% CI) | Adjusted RR or mean difference (95% CI) | Adjusted RR or mean difference (95% CI) | Adjusted RR or mean difference (95% CI) | |
| Program implementation indicators | |||||||||
| Local chickens, n | 2.5 ± 3.9 | 2.3 ± 3.7 | 2.2 ± 3.7 | −0.18 (−0.98, 0.62) | −0.53 (−1.29, 0.23) | −0.36 (−1.01, 0.30) | −0.44 (−1.21, 0.33) | −0.73 (−1.43, 0.04)** | −0.29 (−0.96, 0.37) |
| Improved chickens, n | 1.2 ± 4.6 | 7.6 ± 8.4 | 7.7 ± 8.5 | 6.25 (4.35, 8.15)*** | 6.36 (4.20, 8.51)*** | 0.11 (−2.42, 2.64) | 6.92 (4.89, 8.96)*** | 6.82 (4.74, 8.90)*** | −0.10 (−2.46, 2.25) |
| Women's decision making related to chickens, out of 6 | 0.3 ± 0.4 | 0.4 ± 0.4 | 0.4 ± 0.4 | 0.11 (0.02, 0.20)** | 0.12 (0.04, 0.21)*** | 0.01 (−0.09, 0.11) | 0.09 (0.01, 0.16)** | 0.11 (0.03, 0.18)*** | 0.02 (−0.06, 0.10) |
| Chicken income, proportion of expenditure | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | −0.02 (−0.07, 0.04) | −0.02 (−0.07, 0.03) | −0.01 (−0.04, 0.03) | −0.02 (−0.07, 0.03) | −0.02 (−0.07, 0.03) | −0.00 (−0.03, 0.03) |
| Frequency of child's egg consumption last week, n days | 0.3 ± 0.9 | 0.6 ± 1.2 | 0.8 ± 1.7 | 0.34 (0.07, 0.60)** | 0.55 (0.23, 0.88)*** | 0.21 (−0.15, 0.58) | 0.22 (−0.04, 0.47)* | 0.45 (0.16, 0.75)*** | 0.24 (−0.10, 0.58) |
| Child's 7-d dietary diversity, categories | 3.6 ± 1.6 | 4.0 ± 1.6 | 3.8 ± 1.9 | 0.38 (0.09, 0.68)** | 0.20 (−0.41, 0.80) | −0.18 (−0.76, 0.39) | 0.16 (−0.17, 0.49) | 0.00 (−0.47, 0.47) | −0.16 (−0.63, 0.31) |
| Eggs produced in household last week, n | 3.6 ± 7.5 | 7.1 ± 11.6 | 7.1 ± 15.0 | 3.55 (0.97, 6.12)*** | 3.43 (0.92, 5.95)*** | −0.11 (−3.00, 2.74) | 3.27 (0.82, 5.73)*** | 3.05 (0.74, 5.35)*** | −0.23 (−3.03, 2.58) |
| Chicken management practices | |||||||||
| Has coop, % | 48.5 (149) | 74.8 (181) | 70.7 (171) | 1.52 (1.20, 1.92)*** | 1.44 (1.13, 1.83)*** | 0.95 (0.80, 1.13) | 1.57 (1.32, 1.87)*** | 1.45 (1.21, 1.74)*** | 0.92 (0.82, 1.04) |
| Has coop that is separated from house, % | 26.7 (82) | 44.2 (107) | 45.5 (110) | 1.46 (0.96, 2.18)* | 1.45 (0.92, 2.28) | 0.99 (0.75, 1.32) | 1.67 (1.20, 2.33)*** | 1.67 (1.18, 2.36)*** | 1.00 (0.77, 1.30) |
| Has enclosed coop, % | 15.6 (48) | 33.9 (82) | 30.6 (74) | 2.12 (1.34, 3.35)*** | 1.94 (1.20, 3.15)*** | 0.92 (0.64, 1.32) | 2.05 (1.33, 3.15)*** | 1.83 (1.15, 2.91)** | 0.90 (0.66, 1.22) |
| Chickens do not roam freely at night, % | 35.8 (110) | 42.6 (103) | 38.8 (94) | 1.21 (0.94, 1.57) | 1.11 (0.85, 1.46) | 0.92 (0.69, 1.24) | 1.24 (0.97, 1.58)* | 1.12 (0.87, 1.42) | 0.90 (0.69, 1.17) |
| Chickens did not sleep in house last night, % | 63.2 (194) | 70.2 (170) | 70.7 (171) | 1.01 (0.88, 1.14) | 1.02 (0.87, 1.18) | 1.01 (0.87, 1.19) | 1.03 (0.89, 1.20) | 1.06 (0.90, 1.24) | 1.02 (0.87, 1.21) |
| No visible animal feces on compound, % | 41.0 (126) | 33.9 (82) | 33.5 (81) | 0.81 (0.61, 1.08) | 0.80 (0.59, 1.09) | 0.99 (0.69, 1.41) | 0.87 (0.66, 1.13) | 0.86 (0.64, 1.17) | 1.00 (0.72, 1.38) |
| Chicken management score | 2.3 ± 1.4 | 3.0 ± 1.5 | 2.9 ± 1.7 | 0.59 (0.14, 1.04)*** | 0.49 (−0.00, 0.99)* | −0.10 (−0.59, 0.40) | 0.65 (0.30, 1.01)*** | 0.54 (0.13, 0.94)*** | −0.11 (−0.54, 0.31) |
Values are % (n) for binary variables and mean ± SDs for continuous variables in columns 2–4. Values are RRs (95% CIs) for binary variables or mean differences (95% CIs) for continuous variables in columns 5–10. Robust bootstrapped CIs are clustered at the village level. *,**,***Significant difference: *P < 0.1, **P < 0.05, ***P < 0.01. Adjusted regressions include the following baseline variables: wealth quintiles, number of other livestock, number of household members, years of education of mother, maternal age, having improved water, and having improved sanitation. The 6 variables comprising the chicken management score are as follows: has a chicken coop, has a coop that is separated from the house, has an enclosed coop, chickens do not roam freely at night, chickens did not sleep in the house last night, and no visible animal feces on the compound. ACGG, African Chicken Genetic Gains; ATONU, Agriculture to Nutrition; RR, risk ratio.