Monira Parveen
INTRODUCTION
Undernutrition is one of the major public health challenges in Bangladesh which passes from one generation to the next- begins in mother’s womb resulting in low birth weight, and subsequently, undernutrition during childhood. Children suffer from both short-term acute food deficits as reflected in underweight (low weight- for-age) or wasting (low weight for height), as well as from longer-term chronic undernutrition as reflected in high rates of stunting (low height-for-age).
Undernutrition manifested as growth failure carries increased risk of mortality and morbidity , which can inhibit accessing educational opportunities and labour force participation, and thus effect productivity. The high level of growth failure therefore represents an enormous loss of human capital (Gillespie and Haddad 2001).
There has been a steady decline in the prevalence of stunting and underweight among children aged 6-59 months in Bangladesh (HKI 2001, HKI 2005, HKI 2006, BDHS 2000, BDHS 2004 and BDHS 2007). However, child undernutrition rates in Bangladesh, especially among the poor, still remain very high – among the highest in the world. Recent survey (BDHS 2007) indicates that Bangladesh has 46, 36 and 16% of moderate to severely underweight, stunted and wasted children respectively. Also, around one third of women aged 15-49 years (34%)
6
have a Body Mass Index (BMI)1 of less than 18.5 and are categorised as chronically energy deficient (CED); this figure is even higher among rural women (37%) and also among mothers (38%) of under-five children (BDHS 2004).
Children and women become under-nourished if they are unable to eat enough nutritious foods or if they suffer from illness. However, these two causes are confounded by many other factors at the households, community and national level, which makes the elimination of malnutrition challenging. Relationship between household income, food security and nutritional status is well known.
Wealth status, overall household expenditure and expenditure on staple foods in particular, appear to have strong association with nutritional sufficiency in the households in general, and among children in particular (Dancer et al. 2008, HKI 2006b, Torlesse et al. 2003).
To record benchmark information and measure programme impact in future, a baseline survey was conducted on the TUP Phase II beneficiary households in 2007 before the intervention began. This chapter reports key findings on the household food security and nutritional status of the survey population with specific focus on women and children under-five years.
METHODOLOGY Anthropometrical measurements
The anthropometry data collected in this survey were incumbent length/height, weight and mid upper arm circumference (MUAC) for all members of the study households present at the time of survey. However, length measurements for the infants less than 6 months of age and MUAC for the children less than one year and above five years were not taken. Selected subjects were measured following standard procedures (Gibson 1990). Weight was measured with a digital bathroom scale (TANITA, Japan) to the nearest 0.1 kg; subjects were barefoot and wore light clothes when they were weighed. The weighing scales were checked for performance (with known weight) everyday before use.
Height/length was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm with a locally constructed portable wooden height cum length board. Tape at low cost (TALC) was used to measure MUAC to the nearest 2 mm.
1 Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as bodyweight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared (kg/m2). Low BMI or thinness is used to assess different levels of undernutrition in adults:
• BMI 17.0 - 18.49 mild undernutrition
•
Nutritional indices used
Raw anthropometry data of the children under-five years and 6-9 years were converted into Z-scores using the new WHO growth standard reference values (ANTHRO 2005), WHO and STATA 9.0 using WHO macro files (igrowup_standard.ado). The nutritional status of the children was estimated using standard cut-off points for each of the indices. Underweight was defined as weight-for-age Z-scores <-2 Standard Deviations (SD) below the reference median, stunting as height-for-age Z-scores <-2 SD, wasting as weight-for-height Z-scores <-2 SD and thinness as BMI-for-age Z-scores <-2 SD below the reference median and less than 125 mm of MUAC (Gibson 1990). Body mass index (BMI) for adolescents (10-14 years) and adults were calculated (weight in kg/height in (m)2) from weight and height data. Low BMI, which is often considered as an indicator of chronic energy deficiency (CED), was defined as BMI <18.5.
Assessment of household food security
Food security at the household level was assessed using a food frequency checklist in addition to a set of questionnaire that includes six questions developed for rural households in Bangladesh. Some of these questions were adopted from the BRAC/Cornell university study in Bangladesh (Frongilo 2003) and few were constructed to capture the seasonal food scarcity, as well as overall perceived food sufficiency status. There were three major dimensions of this assessment; 1) consumption frequency of certain food items in the last week prior to interview, 2) recent food security status in terms of access to enough (quantity) food, access to quality (nutritious) food and dependency on food in the last month and 3) year round food security status, in terms of meal frequency a day most of the time in the last year, changes in food consumption during crisis period (Monga) and perceived food sufficiency status in the last year prior to interview. Households were categorized according to the conceptual meaning and severity of the responses those are described in Table 1.
Ethical consideration
Ethical clearance was obtained from the Bangladesh Medical Research Council (BMRC) of the government of Bangladesh. Written consent was sought from all the respondents who are also the mother of children measured. Verbal informed consent was also taken from the head of the households.
Data management and analysis
Data was analyzed separately for the STUP I and STUP II areas, and compared among the three selected groups namely targeted ultra poor (TUP), non-targeted
poor (NTP), and the non-poor (NP). SPSS version 11.5 was used for data analysis. Tests for significance were done where necessary.
Table 1. Definition of the categories of household food security
Dimension Themes Categories of Food insecurity
Definition of categories Secure Could eat ≥ 3 times/week Moderate Could eat only 1-2 times/week Micronutrient Source
(Green Leafy Vegetables
(GLV) – purchased) Extreme Could not eat once/week Secure Could eat ≥ 3 times/week Moderate Could eat only 1-2 times/week 1. Food
consumption frequency (in
the last week) Protein Sources (Eggs, fish and meat)
Extreme Could not eat once/week Secure Always could eat enough food Occasional Could not eat enough food 1-3
times/month
Moderate Could not eat enough food 1-2 times/week
Access to sufficient/enough quantity of food
Extreme Could not eat enough food ≥ 3 times/week
Secure Not once had to eat only rice Occasional Had to eat only rice 1-3
times/month
Moderate Had to eat only rice 1-2 times/week Access to quality food
(staple with other items making diversified diet)
Extreme Had to eat only rice ≥ 3 times/week Secure Not once had to borrow rice/wheat Occasional Had to borrow rice/wheat 1-3
times/month
Moderate Had to borrow rice/wheat 1-2 times/week
2. Recent food insecurity status (in the last month)
Dependency on food
Extreme Had to borrow rice/wheat ≥ 3 times/week
Secure Could afford two meals/day Meal Frequency for most
of the time in last year Moderate to Extreme
Could not afford at least two meals/day
Secure No change in food
Moderate Decrease in quantity of food Moderate Decrease in quality of food Seasonal food insecurity
(changes in food
consumption during crisis or Monga period)
Extreme Decrease in both quantity and quality
Secure Surplus Secure Neither deficit nor surplus Occasional/
Moderate
Deficit sometimes 3. Year round
food insecurity (in the last year)
Food sufficiency in the last year as perceived
Extreme Always deficit in food
RESULTS
Household food security status
Food security status was assessed in-terms of food frequency in the last 7 days, access to enough (quantity) food, access to quality food and dependency on food in the last month, meal frequency a day most of the time in a year prior to the interview, changes in food consumption during crisis period (Monga) and overall food sufficiency status as perceived by the respondents and the findings are presented in this section (Figure 1,2 and 3).
Figure 1 shows the results on consumption frequencies for certain food items rich in micronutrients and protein in particular. Except vegetables and small fish, all other food items were consumed much less frequently (1-2 times/week or even not once in a week) specially by the NTP and TUP households in both areas (STUP I or STUP II). Furthermore, it was found that within each of the areas a significantly (p<0.01) higher proportion of TUP households suffered from this poor consumption compared to NTP. In addition, the proportion of households with poor consumption was higher in the STUP I areas compared to the STUP II areas within the same poverty group. Vegetables and small fish were consumed at higher frequencies by the majority across poverty groups (Annex 1).
Figure 1. Consumption pattern in terms of food frequency by poverty groups
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NP NTP TUP NP NTP TUP NP NTP TUP NP NTP TUP NP NTP TUP NP NTP TUP NP NTP TUP NP NTP TUP NP NTP TUP NP NTP TUP
STUP I STUP II STUP I STUP II STUP I STUP II STUP I STUP II STUP I STUP II
GLV-purchased Eggs Big-fish Small-fish Meat
Food Items & Poverty Groups
% of Households
<1 time/week 1-2 times/week ≥3 times/week
When recent food security status i.e., access to enough food in the last month prior to interview was enquired with the respondents, not unexpectedly the majority of the non-poor (71% in STUP I and 78% in STUP II) reported that they
had not had to face even one day in the last month where they could not eat enough food (Annex 2). On the other hand, 13 to 21% of NTP and 27-39% of TUP households could not eat enough food once or more times a week (moderate to extreme insecurity). Households facing this crisis were more (p <0.01) in the STUP I areas compared to the STUP II areas, especially among the TUP (Figure 2). A similar feature also emerged for the access to quality food and dependency on food in the last month. Over half of the TUP households had to eat only rice with salt (no curry) once or more times in a week and, this proportion was significantly higher (p <0.01) when compared to the NTP. Regarding dependency on food, 30% of TUP in STUP I and 24% of TUP in STUP II areas, had to borrow rice from others to make a meal once or more times in a week and, compared to TUP, households facing similar crisis were less in NTP group in both areas.
Figure 2. Recent moderate to extreme food insecurity based on three themes by poverty groups
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
NP (1) NTP (2) TUP (3) NP (4) NTP (5) TUP (6)
STUP I STUP II
Poverty groups
% of Households
Could not eat enough food 1-5 times/week Had to eat only rice 1-5 times/week Had to borrow rice 1-5 times/week
In terms of year round food security status as assessed, more than half of the TUP households in both areas reported not being able to afford two meals a day most of the time in the last year prior to interview, compared to nearly one third in NTP facing similar crisis (Figure 3). There was no significant difference in proportion between the same poverty group from STUP I and STUP II areas.
Regarding food crisis during Monga, 65% TUP in STUP I and 47% TUP in STUP II areas expressed that they are to face extreme food crisis during this lean period i.e., they need to compromise with both quantity and quality of food.
Nevertheless NTP households experiencing seasonal food shortage to the similar extent were found to be relatively in lesser proportion than TUP in both areas.
the TUP (93-94%) followed by NTP (73-80%) households had occasional to always food insecurity in the last year prior to the interview (Figure 3 and Annex 3).
Figure 3. Year round moderate to extreme food insecurity based on three themes by poverty groups
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NP (1) NTP (2) TUP (3) NP (4) NTP (5) TUP (6)
STUP I STUP II
Poverty Groups
% of Households
Can not afford 2 meals/day most of the time in a year Decrese quantity & quality of food during crisis period Occasional-always food deficit as perceived
Nutritional status of under-five children
Regardless if targeted or non-targeted by the programme, poor households had more number of malnourished children compared to non-poor households in both STUP I and STUP II areas (Figure 4).
Among the targeted poor, chronic undernutrition was more evident in STUP II while acute undernutrition was prevalent more in the STUP I areas. Significantly (p <0.01) higher proportion of underweight and stunted children were found among TUP in the STUP II areas compared to their counterparts in STUP I areas.
On the other hand, proportion of children with wasting known as the acute undernutrition was higher (p<0.01) in the STUP I areas.
According to Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC), undernourishment did not show such difference between STUP I and STUP II areas, although, it varied across the poverty groups in each of the areas. Non-poor households had only 6%
of thin children (MUAC <125 mm) against 11-15% among poor households (NTP and TUP).
Undernutrition among under-five children was examined according to gender of the children (Annex 4). It was interesting to see that, gender difference exhibited more in chronic undernutrition compared to acute undernutrition, wherein boys were more undernourished compared to girls across the poverty groups in both areas (STUP I and STUP II). Underweight and wasted proportion in boys and
girls were almost similar, but there was a significantly higher proportion of stunted boys observed, especially in non-poor groups. However, according to MUAC, significantly higher proportion of girls were undernourished compared to their male counterparts. Proportion of underweight and stunted children increased as age progressed. However, this feature was not observed with wasting or thinness (Annex 6).
Figure 4. Nutritional status of under-five children
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
NP (1) NTP (2) TUP (3) NP (4) NTP (5) TUP (6)
STUP I STUP II
Poverty Groups
% of Children
Underweight Stunting Wasting
As a reflection of both short and long term undernutrition, the underweight proportion in children less than five years was investigated by some selected socio-demographic and household food security status. Table 2 reveals the differentials of underweight between various categories of household characteristics found from the bivariate analysis. Religion tended to be an underlying factor for undernutrition in children. In all poverty groups, underweight children were more in Muslim households compared to non- Muslims. Household size did show an influence on the underweight, but was not consistent for all the poverty groups. Among NTP and TUP in STUP I areas and NTP in SUP II areas, households with five or more members had a higher proportion of underweight children compared to households with four or less members, although this was not the case with the remaining poverty groups.
Ownership of agricultural land is important for economic status and influence on the nutritional status of vulnerable groups. Among the poor groups in the STUP II areas, a significantly higher proportion of underweight children observed in the households did not own any agricultural land. However, this was not evident in the STUP I areas. Health and hygienic practice has a direct relationship with the nutritional status of children under the age of five years. However, the use of a hygienic latrine by the children did not show such relationship in most of the
Table 2. Proportion (%) of underweight children by selected variables and poverty groups
STUP 1 STUP 2 P-value
Variables
NP (1)
NTP (2)
TUP (3)
NP (4)
NTP (5)
TUP (6)
2 vs. 3 5 vs. 6 3 vs. 6 Religion
Muslim 39.6 45.6 49.6 34.5 39.5 53.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 Non-Muslim 31.0 40.3 46.1 29.8 41.7 47.3 <0.01 ns ns P-value <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01 ns <0.01
Household size
≤ 4 members 38.3 44.3 46.7 35.4 36.7 54.0 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01
≥ 5 members 38.5 45.4 51.5 33.0 42.1 51.3 <0.01 <0.01 ns P-value ns <0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ns
Land ownership (Agricultural)
Own 36.5 46.9 56.7 32.1 32.2 45.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 Do not own 41.4 44.2 48.4 36.8 41.8 53.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 P-value <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1
Land ownership (Homestead)
Own or rented 37.9 44.4 50.2 34.4 38.4 54.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 Live on other’s land 39.9 45.5 48.0 31.4 42.5 50.6 <0.01 <0.05 ns P-value ns ns ns ns <0.01 <0.05
Hygiene practice (latrine use)
Use hygienic latrine 33.6 42.3 48.8 35.9 41.0 45.8 <0.05 ns ns Use non-hygienic
latrine
38.8 44.5 48.3 34.7 37.7 51.2 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 P-value <0.01 ns ns ns <0.01 ns
n 2538 5481 2759 587 726 316 --- --- --- ns = Not significant at the 5% level
Table 3 shows the proportion of underweight according to household’s food consumption in terms frequency of selected protein and micronutrient rich foods such as eggs, meat (poultry and other), fish, green leafy vegetables (GLV) (purchased) and iodized salt. Frequent consumption of these foods by the households has shown to reduce undernutrition among children under-five years.
Significantly higher proportion of underweight children observed in the households never consumed these food items in the last week prior to the interview, compared to those consumed as frequently as 3 or more times a week.
It was also encouraging to see that, among all the poverty groups in both areas, underweight children were less in the households that used packed salt (which is assumed to be iodized), compared to those used open salt. An exception observed with the egg and GLV consumption among the TUP children in the STUP II areas wherein more children were undernourished in families with higher consumption frequency. This could be due to the fact that these households substituted GLV and eggs with other diversified nutritious foods.
Undernutrition was compared between food secured and food insecure (moderate to extreme) households (Table 4). In terms of recent food insecurity status, i.e.
status during the last one month prior to the interview, underweight children were more prevelent in the households with moderate to extreme food insecurity, compared to food secure households. Throughout the poverty groups, a significantly (p<0.01) higher proportion of underweight children were also found in households with a moderate to extreme level of food insecurity faced all over the year (including crisis period). There was only an exception with TUP in the STUP II areas.
Table 3. Proportion (%) of underweight children by food consumption and poverty groups
STUP 1 STUP 2 P-value Variables
NP (1)
NTP (2)
TUP (3)
NP (4)
NTP (5)
TUP (6)
2 vs. 3 5 vs. 6 3 vs. 6 Egg consumption
Consume ≥ 3 times/week 29.1 38.3 41.7 39.3 36.4 71.4 0.405 <0.01 <0.01 Consume not once/week 40.9 45.1 48.5 41.1 41.7 49.0 0.002 <0.01 ns P-value <0.01 <0.01 ns <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Meat consumption
Consume 1-2 times/week
30.8 44.0 33.0 37.0 22.4 59.5 0.016 <0.01 <0.01 Consume not once/week 39.6 44.4 49.0 34.8 39.4 50.5 0.000 <0.01 ns P-value <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ns <0.01 ns
Big fish consumption ns
Consume ≥ 3 times/week 28.2 37.4 31.0 26.3 50.2 40.0 0.250 ns ns Consume not once/week 37.2 45.1 48.4 40.2 40.5 52.2 0.002 <0.01 <0.05 P-value <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1
Small fish consumption
Consume ≥ 3 times/week 36.9 42.8 42.6 32.4 35.3 50.4 0.482 <0.01 <0.01 Consume not once/week 38.5 42.0 48.2 45.4 23.3 74.3 0.004 <0.01 <0.01 P-value <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 GLV consumption
Consume ≥ 3 times/week 37.7 44.3 47.0 35.0 35.9 49.0 0.304 <0.01 <0.01 Consume 1-2
times/week
41.9 43.4 54.2 35.8 44.4 41.6 0.000 <0.01 ns P-value <0.01 ns <0.01 ns <0.01 <0.01 Iodized salt use
BRAC or any packet salt 35.8 43.4 48.5 34.9 37.3 50.1 <0.01 <0.01 ns Open salt 42.0 45.6 48.2 37.1 45.9 55.2 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 P-value <0.01 <0.01 ns <0.05 <0.01 ns
n 2538 5481 2759 587 726 316 --- --- --- ns = Not significant at the 5% level
Nutritional status of school age children and adolescents
Figure 5 shows the nutritional status of school age children (6-9 years) in STUP I and STUP II areas. Similar to the under-five age group, (Figure 4) in both areas proportion of undernourished children were significantly more (p <0.01) in poor