THE MAGNITUDE OF STUNTING PREVALENCE
4.5. THE GAP OF STUNTING PREVALENCE
THE MAGNITUDE OF STUNTING PREVALENCE the national prevalence. They were North Maluku, West Papua, Riau islands, Banten, South Kalimantan, East Kalimantan, West Kalimantan, East Java, South Sulawesi, Central Sulawesi, Maluku, Papua and East Nusa Tenggara.
Figure 29 shows the prevalence of CED risk in reproductive- aged women (not pregnant). Nationally, the prevalence of the CED risk in reproductive-aged women was as high as 20.8 percent. The lowest prevalence was found in Bali (14%) while the highest one was in East Nusa Tenggara (46,5%).
The 16provinces with the prevalence of CED risks above the national prevalence include:Central Kalimantan, East Java, Banten, South Kalimantan, D.I. Aceh, D.I. Yogyakarta, West Nusa Tenggara, South Sulawesi, Central Sulawesi, North Maluku, Southeast Sulawesi, West Sulawesi, West Papua, Maluku, Papua and East Nusa Tenggara.
Figure 29. Prevalence of chronic energy deficiency (CED)’ riskin women at reproductive age of 15-49 years by province, Indonesia 2013
well as the tendency of the gap in 2007 compared to in 2013.
Magnitudes of the gaps on the stunting prevalence and disparity across age groups by characteristics are discussed in more details as following.
4.5.1. Gaps by residence
Magnitude of gap on stunting prevalence between urban and rural from all age groups is shown in Figure 30.
Source: Riskesdas 2013
Figure 30. The gap of stunted prevalence for all age groups between urban and rural areas, 2013
It is consistently and significantly shown by the above figure that stunting prevalence was higher in rural than urban for all age groups, i.e. newborns, children under five years old, adolescents and adults. Considering that the number of population in rural is a liitle bit higher than that in urban, priority of intervention has to be reaching all rural areas in order to accelerate the reduction of stunting prevalence.
THE MAGNITUDE OF STUNTING PREVALENCE
4.5.2. Gaps by household’s wealth level
Wealth of household was categorized into 5 quintiles, in which quintile 1 was the poorest group and quintile 5 was the richest group. To measure the role of household’s wealth index on the prevalence of stunting, the prevalence of children from quintile 1 (the poorest households) was contrasted with that of children from quintile 5 (the richest households), as outlined in the following figure:
Source: Riskesdas, 2013
Figure 31. The gap of stunted prevalence for all groups in lowest and highest economic status, 2013
The figure 31 clearly showed that stunting prevalence among children from quintile 1 was consistently and significantly higher than the prevalence among the quintile-5 children. The difference of the prevalence among school-aged children (5-12 years) and (13-18 years) between these two wealth quintiles was almost doubled. The role of household’s wealth on stunting is indeed uncontested. Therefore, programs addressing poverty reduction have to always be put as priority. In addition, nutrition education at school is one of the key interventions to reduce stunting among school-aged children. It is for the benefits of not only the
4.5.3. Gaps by educational level
For the purpose of assessing the association of educational level with prevalence of stunting, the educational level was categorized into two, i.e. low education (elementary school level or lower), and medium-high education (junior high school level or higher). The following figure (Figure 32) demonstrates the gaps of stunting prevalence for each age group, related with educational level of head of the households. A significant and consistent pattern was observed in each age group, in which the prevalence was always higher among children from family with low educated head of households. It indicates that the household head’s level of education do influence nutritional status of the household members.
It was obviously seen that there was a significant and consistent findings showing that in all age groups, low educated head of households had higher prevalence of stunting of their household members compared to that of the medium-high educated head of households.
Source: Riskesdas 2013
Figure 32. The gap of stunted prevalence for all groups based on Education level of Household’s head, 2013
THE MAGNITUDE OF STUNTING PREVALENCE
4.5.4. Gaps across provinces
Gaps on stunting prevalence also occurred across provinces. As an example, the following figure (Figure 33) shows prevalence of stunting among children under five years old across provinces in 2013.
Source: Riskesdas 2013
Figure 33. The gap of stunted prevalence of children under five by province, 2013
Kepulauan Riau, DI Yogyakarta and DKI Jakarta were three provinces with the lowest prevalence of stunting among children under five years old. In contrary, East Nusa Tenggara and West Sulawesi had the highest prevalences. The stunting prevalence among the children in East Nusa Tenggara was almost 2 times higher than that in Kepulauan Riau.
4.5.5. Gaps across provinces for all age group
The gaps on stunting prevalence for all age groups across provinces can be seen in the following figure.
Source: Riskesdas 2013.
Figure 34. The gap of stunted prevalence for all groups based on lowest and highest province, 2013
The above figure tells us that for newborns, the gaps on stunting prevalence (based on their birth length) were higher than the gaps on low birth weight. The gaps were calculated by comparing provinces with the highest and the lowest prevalence. The largest gap was observed among adolescents aged 13-18 years, or among those who were at junior or senior high school. It indicates the importance and strategy of school-based approach as the basis for nutrition education intervention.
4.5.6. The gaps across districts within province
Gaps on stunting prevalence also occur across districts/
municipalities within province, as illustrated in Figure 35.
THE MAGNITUDE OF STUNTING PREVALENCE
Source: Riskesdas 2013
Figure 35. The gap of stunted prevalence for children under 5 across districts by province, 2013
The lowest gap was the one in D.I.Yogyakarta and Banten, while the highest one was in Papua and Southeast Sulawesi. These data can be used to make priority in selecting district/municipality for intervention, when resources are limited.
4.5.7. Pattern of the gaps across provinces in 2007 – 2013
It is interesting to observe pattern of the gaps on stunting prevalence in 2007, compared to the ones in 2013. Figure 36 demonstrates the patterns across provinces for all age groups in 2007 and 2013.
Source: Riskesdas 2007, 2013
Figure 36. The trend and gap of stunted prevalence for all groups based on lowest and highest province, 2007 – 2013
It is shown that there was no significant change of the gaps between 2007 and 2013. Moreover among children under five years of age, the gaps in 2013 were larger than the ones in 2007.
It indicates that for around 5-6 years there was no significant change on the efforts to reduce the prevalence of stunting for all age groups.
THE BURDEN IN THE FUTURE AS A RESULT OF STUNTING TODAY