Skip to main content
. 2020 Aug 4;17(1):e13062. doi: 10.1111/mcn.13062

TABLE 3.

Mixed effects regression results from key nutrition knowledge factors on woman's dietary diversity (10 food groups, ‘W‐models’) and children's dietary diversity (seven food groups, ‘C‐models’), adjusting for demographic and household variables and village‐level clustering

Women's dietary diversity (24‐h recall) a W‐model 1 W‐model 2 W‐model 3 W‐model 4 W‐model 5 W‐model 6 (interaction terms—women) W‐model 7 (interaction terms—men) W‐model 8 (market; subgroup n = 1,171)
Women's dietary knowledge 0.19 * [0.092, 0.29] 0.12 * [0.0052, 0.24] 0.15 * [0.0046, 0.29] 0.12 * [0.0059, 0.24] 0.14 * [0.016, 0.26]
Women's vitamin knowledge 0.13 * [0.035, 0.22]
Men's dietary knowledge 0.18 * [0.087, 0.27] 0.11 * [0.0030, 0.23] 0.12 * [0.0058, 0.23] 0.22 * [0.034, 0.42] 0.12 * [0.00013, 0.24]
Men's vitamin knowledge 0.14 * [0.032, 0.24]
Distance to market (min) −0.0017 * [−0.0033, −0.00017]
Interaction terms (knowledge and education) Not significant (see Table S2) Significant (see Figure 3 and Table S2)
AIC 4,303.0 4,310.0 4,303.2 4,311.0 4,301.0 4,306.1 4,296.3 3,631.0
Children's dietary diversity (24‐h recall) a C‐model 1 C‐model 2 C‐model 3 C‐model 4 C‐model 5 C‐model 6 (interaction terms—women) C‐model 7 (interaction terms—men) C‐model 8 (market; subgroup n = 613)
Women's dietary knowledge 0.19 * [0.018, 0.36] 0.12 [−0.077, 0.32] 0.22 b [−0.026, 0.47] 0.12 [−0.082, 0.32] 0.19 b [−0.018, 0.39]
Women's vitamin knowledge 0.033 [−0.12, 0.19]
Men's dietary knowledge 0.19 * [0.018, 0.36] 0.12 [−0.077, 0.32] 0.13 [−0.070, 0.33] 0.016 [−0.37, 0.40] 0.099 [−0.11, 0.31]
Men's vitamin knowledge 0.21 * [0.020, 0.40]
Distance to market (min) −0.0017 [−0.0043, 0.00082]
Interaction term (knowledge and education) Not significant Not significant
AIC 2,594.5 2,599.2 2,594.2 2,595.6 2,594.9 2,595.9 2,598.8 2,117.2
a

All models were adjusted for household size, household wealth quintile, woman's age, man's age, woman's education, man's education, geographical region and kebele‐level clustering (treatment effects were not significant). Children's models additionally adjusted for age of the child. Full model results are shown in Tables S3S5.

b

P < 0.10.

*

P < 0.05.