TABLE 1.
Characteristics of the sample of a nutrition-sensitive agriculture intervention in rural Ghana, by treatment group and level of participation1
| Intervention2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | No participation | Low participation | Medium participation | High participation | |
| (n = 213) | (n = 55) | (n = 74) | (n = 78) | (n = 72) | |
| Child | |||||
| Baseline characteristics | |||||
| Sex, female | 97 (45.5) | 26 (47.3) | 35 (47.9) | 39 (50.6) | 32 (45.7) |
| Age group, mo | |||||
| >12 | 65 (30.5) | 14 (25.5) | 21 (29.2) | 31 (40.3) | 22 (31.4) |
| 10 to 12 | 52 (24.4) | 11 (20.0) | 12 (16.7) | 14 (18.2) | 15 (21.4) |
| 6 to 9 | 59 (27.7) | 18 (32.7) | 28 (38.9) | 16 (20.8) | 21 (30.0) |
| <6 | 37 (17.4) | 12 (21.8) | 11 (15.3) | 16 (20.8) | 12 (17.1) |
| Minimum dietary diversity3,4 | 63 (36.6) | 20 (47.6) | 29 (49.2) | 29 (49.2) | 17 (29.8) |
| Consumed eggs3 | 36 (20.5) | 12 (27.9) | 16 (25.8) | 12 (19.7) | 13 (22.4) |
| Length‐for‐age, z‐score5 | −0.8 ± 1.3 | −0.9 ± 1.4 | −0.8 ± 1.0 | −0.7 ± 1.5 | −1.2 ± 1.1 |
| Weight‐for‐age, z‐score5 | −0.7 ± 1.3 | −1.0 ± 1.3 | −0.7 ± 1.0 | −0.7 ± 1.1 | −0.7 ± 1.2 |
| Weight‐for‐length, z‐score5 | −0.3 ± 1.2 | −0.5 ± 1.2 | −0.4 ± 1.0 | −0.5 ± 1.0 | −0.1 ± 1.3 |
| Maternal | |||||
| Baseline characteristics | |||||
| Age group, y | |||||
| ≥35 | 38 (18.6) | 5 (9.3) | 16 (23.2) | 14 (19.2) | 14 (21.5) |
| 25 to 34 | 78 (38.2) | 15 (27.8) | 22 (31.9) | 28 (38.4) | 28 (43.1) |
| <25 | 88 (43.1) | 34 (63.0) | 31 (44.9) | 31 (42.5) | 23 (35.4) |
| Ethnicity, Krobo6,*** | 161 (77.4)a | 31 (56.4)b | 51 (70.8)a,b | 65 (86.7)a | 61 (87.1)a |
| Married/cohabiting7 | 162 (77.9) | 36 (69.2) | 43 (81.1) | 41 (77.4) | 43 (81.1) |
| Education8 | |||||
| Secondary or higher | 79 (38.0) | 9 (17.3) | 19 (35.8) | 18 (34.0) | 18 (34.0) |
| Primary | 89 (42.8) | 26 (50.0) | 22 (41.5) | 25 (47.2) | 23 (43.4) |
| None | 40 (19.2) | 17 (32.7) | 12 (22.6) | 10 (18.9) | 12 (22.6) |
| Income generating activity9,* | |||||
| Farmer | 75 (36.1)a,b | 9 (16.4)b | 27 (37.5)a,b | 34 (45.3)a | 33 (47.1)a |
| Trader | 72 (34.6)a | 23 (41.8)a | 27 (37.5)a | 25 (33.3)a | 22 (31.4)a |
| Others | 20 (9.6)a | 4 (7.3)a | 6 (8.3)a | 2 (2.7)a | 4 (5.7)a |
| None | 41 (19.7)a | 19 (34.5)a | 12 (16.7)a | 14 (18.7)a | 11 (15.7)a |
| Household | |||||
| Baseline characteristics | |||||
| Raised fowl10 | 181 (85.0) | 39 (70.9) | 58 (79.5) | 66 (85.7) | 59 (84.3) |
| Household size11 | 6.4 ± 2.8 | 6.7 ± 2.4 | 6.7 ± 2.4 | 7.5 ± 3.5 | 6.9 ± 2.4 |
| Food security12 | |||||
| Severely food insecure | 95 (45.2) | 22 (40.0) | 28 (38.9) | 36 (48.0) | 33 (47.2) |
| Moderately food insecure | 54 (25.7) | 17 (30.9) | 23 (31.9) | 16 (21.3) | 18 (25.7) |
| Mildly food insecure | 39 (18.6) | 8 (14.5) | 10 (13.9) | 15 (20.0) | 15 (21.4) |
| Food secure | 22 (10.5) | 8 (14.5) | 11 (15.3) | 8 (10.7) | 4 (5.7) |
| Wealth13 | |||||
| High | 70 (33.8) | 25 (45.5) | 25 (36.2) | 21 (28.4) | 18 (26.1) |
| Medium | 67 (32.4) | 20 (36.4) | 23 (33.3) | 25 (33.8) | 21 (30.4) |
| Low | 70 (33.8) | 10 (18.2) | 21 (30.4) | 28 (37.8) | 30 (43.5) |
*P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001.
Values are n (%) or mean ± SD.
Column comparisons were done between the 5 participation levels (control; no, low, medium, and high participation). One-factor ANOVA test for continuous variables; chi-square test of independence for categorical variables (with z-test to compare columns). Bonferroni correction method was used to correct α for all multiple comparisons. Superscripts within a row indicate whether pairwise comparisons were statistically different (P < 0.05).
Project nutrition educators evaluated twice, 1 mo apart, the participation of women who adopted the intervention [on a scale of very poor (1) to excellent (5)] for 5 items: 1) attendance (attending nutrition education weekly meetings), 2) productivity (eggs produced), 3) payment (timely and complete payment of project inputs), 4) contribution (active participation during meetings), and 5) relationship (being attentive and helpful to group members at weekly education meetings). The mean value of the 5 items was obtained at each evaluation and the average of the 2 evaluations was then divided into tertiles (high, medium, low). Women who did not adopt the intervention were coded as “no participation.” Women in the nonintervention communities were coded “control.”
Included only cases with complete participation level data.
Assessed for the previous 24 h; included only children aged ≥6 mo.
≥4 of the following food groups: grains, roots, and tubers; legumes and nuts; dairy products; flesh foods; eggs; vitamin A‐rich fruits and vegetables; and other fruits and vegetables in the last 24 h (34).
z-scores calculated using WHO growth standards as reference (35).
Krobo, the local ethnic group, was compared with others (Akan, Ewe, Ga, among others).
Married/cohabiting compared with not married/cohabitation.
Highest education level completed.
Primary income-generating activity; others included seamstress, hairdressers, among others.
Raised birds during the year before the intervention.
Number of people who usually reside in the household.
Classification based on a 15‐item Food Insecurity Experience Scale (36).
Wealth: tertiles for the first component of a principal component analysis using 13 household assets: floor material, wall material, cooking fuel, electricity, and ownership of a telephone, radio, television, video player, DVD/CD player, refrigerator, sewing machine, motorcycle, and car.