↓ Skip to main content

Associations of childhood, maternal and household dietary patterns with childhood stunting in Ethiopia: proposing an alternative and plausible dietary analysis method to dietary diversity scores

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
328 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Associations of childhood, maternal and household dietary patterns with childhood stunting in Ethiopia: proposing an alternative and plausible dietary analysis method to dietary diversity scores
Published in
Nutrition Journal, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12937-018-0316-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yohannes Adama Melaku, Tiffany K. Gill, Anne W. Taylor, Robert Adams, Zumin Shi, Amare Worku

Abstract

Identifying dietary patterns that consider the overall eating habits, rather than focusing on individual foods or simple counts of consumed foods, better helps to understand the combined effects of dietary components. Therefore, this study aimed to use dietary patterns, as an alternative method to dietary diversity scores (DDSs), and investigate their associations with childhood stunting in Ethiopia. Mothers and their children aged under 5 years (n = 3788) were recruited using a two-stage random cluster sampling technique in two regions of Ethiopia. Socio-demographic, dietary and anthropometric data were collected. Dietary intake was assessed using standardized dietary diversity tools. Household, maternal and child DDSs were calculated and dietary patterns were identified by tetrachoric (factor) analysis. Multilevel linear and Poisson regression analyses were applied to assess the association of DDSs and dietary patterns with height-for-age z score (HAZ) and stunting, respectively. The overall prevalence of stunting among children under-five was 38.5% (n = 1459). We identified three dietary patterns each, for households ("fish, meat and miscellaneous", "egg, meat, poultry and legume" and "dairy, vegetable and fruit"), mothers ("plant-based", "egg, meat, poultry and legume" and "dairy, vegetable and fruit" and children ("grain based", "egg, meat, poultry and legume" and "dairy, vegetable and fruit"). Children in the third tertile of the household "dairy, vegetable and fruit" pattern had a 0.16 (β = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.30) increase in HAZ compared to those in the first tertile. A 0.22 (β = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.39) and 0.19 (β = 0.19; 0.04, 0.33) increase in HAZ was found for those in the third tertiles of "dairy, vegetable and fruit" patterns of children 24-59 months and 6-59 months, respectively. Those children in the second (β = -0.17; 95% CI: -0.31, -0.04) and third (β = -0.16; 95% CI: -0.30, -0.02) tertiles of maternal "egg, meat, poultry and legume" pattern had a significantly lower HAZ compared to those in the first tertile. No significant associations between the household and child "egg, meat, poultry and legume" dietary patterns with HAZ and stunting were found. Statistically non-significant associations were found between household, maternal and child DDSs, and HAZ and stunting. A higher adherence to a "dairy, vegetable and fruit" dietary pattern is associated with increased HAZ and reduced risk of stunting. Dietary pattern analysis methods, using routinely collected dietary data, can be an alternative approach to DDSs in low resource settings, to measure dietary quality and in determining associations of overall dietary intake with stunting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 328 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 328 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 18%
Lecturer 25 8%
Researcher 24 7%
Student > Bachelor 24 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 6%
Other 46 14%
Unknown 131 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 71 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 15%
Social Sciences 20 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 2%
Other 31 9%
Unknown 141 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,587,406
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,279
of 1,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,845
of 441,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#32
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.