TABLE 2.
Association between participation level in a nutrition-sensitive agriculture intervention and diet outcomes of Ghanaian rural children
| Minimum dietary diversity1,2 | Egg consumption1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted (n = 418) | Adjusted (n = 289) | Unadjusted (n = 418) | Adjusted (n = 297) | |
| Participation level3 | ||||
| High | 1.79 (0.80, 4.01) | 1.15 (0.40, 3.28) | 3.30 (1.43, 7.64)** | 3.03 (1.15, 7.94)* |
| Medium | 1.45 (0.68, 3.11) | 0.75 (0.26, 2.18) | 1.82 (0.79, 4.22) | 1.75 (0.63, 4.84) |
| Low | 1.19 (0.55, 2.57) | 0.69 (0.23, 2.13) | 0.98 (0.38, 2.55) | 0.87 (0.28, 2.75) |
| No participation | 0.78 (0.33, 1.84) | 0.77 (0.25, 2.36) | 1.35 (0.49, 3.71) | 1.04 (0.3, 3.62) |
| Control (ref) | ||||
| Child | ||||
| Baseline of outcome4 | — | 2.65 (1.53, 4.58)*** | — | 2.19 (1.17, 4.11)* |
| Maternal | ||||
| Ethnicity5 | ||||
| Other | — | 0.34 (0.18, 0.66)** | — | — |
| Krobo (ref) | ||||
| Marital status | ||||
| Married/cohabitation | — | 2.71 (1.42, 5.16)** | — | — |
| Not married (ref) | ||||
| Education level | ||||
| Secondary or higher | — | — | — | 1.32 (0.57, 3.04) |
| Primary | — | — | — | 0.70 (0.31, 1.58) |
| None (ref) | ||||
| Income-generating activity | ||||
| Farmer | — | — | — | 2.50 (0.90, 6.96) |
| Trader | — | — | — | 2.71 (0.96, 7.65) |
| Other6 | — | — | — | 3.72 (0.90, 15.39) |
| None (ref) | ||||
| Household | ||||
| Food security7 | ||||
| Severely food insecure | — | 0.45 (0.16, 1.26) | — | 0.49 (0.15, 1.63) |
| Moderately food insecure | — | 0.68 (0.29, 1.60) | — | 1.04 (0.42, 2.59) |
| Mildly food insecure | — | 1.35 (0.62, 2.93) | — | 0.87 (0.39, 1.96) |
| Food secure (ref) | ||||
| Constant | 1.30 (0.95, 1.78) | 0.25 (0.10, 0.64)* | 0.29 (0.19, 0.43)*** | 0.13 (0.05, 0.37)** |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Values shown are ORs (95% CIs adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple groups) from generalized linear mixed models adjusted for random effect of clusters. The adjusted models retained all covariates that had a P < 0.10 either in the bivariate analysis with the outcome or with the outcome adjusted by the baseline value.
Assessed for the previous 24 h.
≥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).
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.” The reference group was the control category.
Includes only children aged ≥6 mo.
Krobo, the local ethnic group, was compared with others (Akan, Ewe, Ga, among others).
Seamstress, hairdresser, among others.
Classification based on a 15‐item Food Insecurity Experience Scale (36).