TABLE 4.
Regression results of key nutrition knowledge factors on household dietary diversity scores
| Household dietary diversity score a | H‐model 1 | H‐model 2 | H‐model 3 | H‐model 4 | H‐model 5 | H‐model 6 (interaction terms—women) | H‐model 7 (interaction terms—men) | H‐model 8 (market; subgroup n = 1,171) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women's dietary knowledge | 0.23 * [0.086, 0.38] | 0.13 [−0.042, 0.31] | 0.28 * [0.065, 0.49] | 0.13 [−0.048, 0.30] | 0.16 b [−0.021, 0.35] | |||
| Women's vitamin knowledge | 0.21 * [0.077, 0.35] | |||||||
| Men's dietary knowledge | 0.24 * [0.10, 0.38] | 0.17 * [0.0021, 0.34] | 0.18 * [0.013, 0.35] | 0.16 [−0.12, 0.45] | 0.16 b [−0.023, 0.34] | |||
| Men's vitamin knowledge | 0.23 * [0.068, 0.38] | |||||||
| Distance to market (minutes) | −0.0025 * [−0.0048, −0.00017] | |||||||
| Interaction term (knowledge and education) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Significant (see Table S5) | Marginally significant | ‐ |
| AIC | 5,428.8 | 5,429.0 | 5,427.1 | 5,430.6 | 5,426.9 | 5,422.6 | 5,425.0 | 4,569.9 |
a
All models adjusted for household size, household wealth quintile, woman's age, man's age, woman's education, man's education, and geographical region; adjusted for kebele‐level clustering (treatment effect were not significant). Full model results are shown in Tables S3–S5.
b
P < 0.10.
*
P < 0.05.