138
Table 4.5: Household food security and dietary diversity classification of the study sample
Dietary Diversity Score category Low dietary
diversity (n=138)
Medium dietary diversity
(n=232)
High dietary diversity
(n=22)
p-value #
Food Security Category
Food secure (48.2%) 7.9% (n=31) 34.7% (n=136) 5.6% (n=22) 0.000 At risk of food insecurity
(35.5%)
17.9% (n=70) 17.6% (n=69) -
Food insecure (11.2%) 6.1% (n=24) 5.1% (n=20) - Severely food insecure (5.1%) 3.3% (n=13) 1.8% (n=7) -
#Chi-square test
From the above table it can be seen that the majority (34.7%) of learners who were food secure, had a medium dietary diversity. Thus illustrating that in this study sample, food security was not necessarily related to a high level of dietary diversity. However, all learners with a high dietary diversity were food secure. It is worth noting that virtually equal numbers of learners who were at risk of food insecurity had either a medium or low dietary diversity. The association between level of food security and dietary diversity was highly significant (p<0.000).
139
Table 4.6: Food groups included in the Dietary Diversity Score (N=392)
Food Groups School feeding beneficiaries
(n=330)
School feeding non-beneficiaries (n=62)
p-values#
Starches 100% (330) 100% (62) N/A
Roots and tubers 7.8% (n=26) 21.0% (n=13) 0.002
Meat, poultry and offal 97.9 (n=323) 93.5% (n=58) 0.058
Fish and seafood 1.2% (n=4) 19.4% (n=12) 0.00
Eggs 5.8% (n=19) 64.5% (n=40) 0.00
Milk and milk products 12.7% (n=42) 87.1% (n=54) 0.94
Vegetables 33.9% (n=112) 83.9% (n=52) 0.00
Fruits 8.5% (n=28) 61.3% (n=38) 0.00
Pulses, beans and legumes 88.5 (n=292) 33.8% (n=21) 0.00
Fats and oils 81.2% (n=268) 100% (n=62) 0.00
Sweets, sugar and honey 100% (n=330) 100% (n=62) N/A
Miscellaneous 93.3% (n=308) 100% (n=62) 0.036
#Independent samples t-test
*N/A=not applicable
All learners, irrespective of whether they were school feeding beneficiaries or not, reported the consumption of food from the starches food group during the previous 24 hours. However, SFP beneficiaries had a significantly lower consumption of fruit and vegetables when compared to SFP non-beneficiaries with 33.9% of beneficiaries consuming vegetables, whereas 83.9% of non- beneficiaries having consumed vegetables in the previous 24 hours. Fruit consumption was 8.5%
versus 61.3% between the two groups, again indicating that non-beneficiaries of the SFP had a higher fruit consumption. Both groups had a low consumption of fish at 1.2% for the SFP group and 19.4% for the SFP non-beneficiary group. In summary, it is worth noting that non-beneficiaries of the SFP consumed a wider variety of food groups that included roots and tubers, fish and seafood, eggs, dairy, vegetables, fruits, fats and oils.
Table 4.7 provides an overview of the mean DDS and HFIAS score per school included in the study sample. In terms of DDS per school category, learners from the SFP non-beneficiary school had a higher DDS of 7.8 versus a mean score of 4.6 for learners from SFP beneficiary schools.
140
The school with the lowest mean DDS (2.6 ± 0.5) was Bontleng Primary School located in an urban area, while the school with highest mean DDS (7.8 ± 1.3) was the SFP non-beneficiary school, Rainbow primary school. Rainbow primary school also had the lowest mean HIAFS (0.2
± 4.8), while Baratani primary school located in a peri-urban area had the highest mean HIAFS (13.3 ± 3.0).
Table 4.7: Mean DDS of and Household Food Securitystatus of participating school
School Name* School Area School category DDS HFIAS
01
5.9% (n=23)
Urban SFP beneficiary 5.9±1.1 5.7±3.8 02
4.9% (n=19)
Urban SFP beneficiary 5.6±0.8 5.9±2.6 03
4.9% (n=19)
Urban SFP beneficiary 5.9±1.0 6.0±2.0 04
2.8% (n=11)
Urban SFP beneficiary 6.1±1.1 6.6±2.3 05
3.6% (n=14)
Urban SFP beneficiary 4.9±0.6 5.5±2.7 06
5.6% (n=22)
Urban SFP beneficiary 6.1±1.2 5.1±2.4 07
5.9% (n=23)
Urban SFP beneficiary 6.2±1.3 4.4±2.9 08
3.6% (n=14)
Urban SFP beneficiary 2.6±0.5 9.5±3.0 09
9.4% (n=37)
Peri-urban SFP beneficiary 3.0±0.7 12.7±3.6 10
13.5% (n=53)
Peri-urban SFP beneficiary 3.3±0.8 13.3±3.0 11
10.5% (n=41)
Peri-urban SFP beneficiary 2.9±0.8 13.0±3.5 12
13.8% (n=54)
Peri-urban SFP beneficiary 3.1±0.7 10.5±1.8 13
15.8% (n=62)
Urban SFP non-beneficiary 7.8±1.3 0.2±4.7
*code name
In terms of overall dietary diversity of the study sample, Figure 4.5 illustrates that the majority of the study sample had a medium dietary diversity while a high dietary diversity was applicable to the minority of study participants.
141
Figure 4.5: Dietary diversity score classification of the study participants
Table 4.8 provides detail regarding the association between level of dietary diversity attained by school feeding beneficiaries versus non-beneficiaries.
Table 4.8: Dietary diversity score of school feeding beneficiaries versus non-school feeding beneficiaries
School Type p-value#
School Feeding Beneficiaries (n=330)
Non-school feeding beneficiaries (n=62)
DDS Low (35.2%) 41.5% (n=137) 1.6% (n=1) 0.000
Medium (59.2%) 58.5 (n=193) 62.9% (n=39)
High (5.6%) - 35.5% (n=22)
#Chi-square test
The above table indicates that a high level of dietary diversity was attained by 35.5% of the learners attending private schools and therefore non-beneficiaries of school feeding, while none of the learners enrolled at government schools (beneficiaries of the SFP) had a high dietary diversity. As was illustrated in Figure 4.5, the majority of learners from both school groups had a medium dietary diversity with 62.9% of learners from private schools attaining a medium dietary diversity while 58.5% of those from government schools attaining the same level of dietary diversity.
142
Table 4.9 depicts the relationship between the level of dietary diversity attained by learners from urban versus peri-urban areas.
Table 4.9: DDS of learners from urban versus peri-urban areas
School Area (n=392)
Urban (n=207) Peri-urban (n=185) p-value#
DDS Low (35.2%) 8.7% (n=18) 64.9 (n=120)
0.000
Medium (59.2%) 80.7% (n=167) 35% (n=65)
High (5.6%) 10.6% (n=22) -
#Chi-square test
From the above it is evident that a high dietary diversity was only attained by urban learners while a low dietary diversity was the most prevalent among peri-urban learners. This finding echoes the fact that learners enrolled at the private school forming part of the study sample was located in an urban area. The association between level of dietary diversity and area of school attendance was highly significant (p<0.000).
Table 4.10 illustrates the relationship between the level of dietary diversity and level of food security documented amongst learners forming part of the study sample.
Table 4.10: Level of dietary diversity related to the level of food security attained by learners forming part of the study sample
Food Security Category Food
secure
At risk of food insecurity
Food insecure Severely food secure
p-value#
DDS Low dietary diversity (35.2%)
22.5%
(n=31)
50.7%
(n=70)
17.4%
(n=24)
9.4%
(n=13)
0.000 Medium dietary
diversity (59.2%)
58.6%
(n=136)
29.7%
(n=69)
8.6%
(n=20)
3.0%
(n=7) High dietary
diversity (5.61%)
100%
(n=22)
- - -
#Chi-square test
The above table illustrated how learners with a high dietary diversity were all food secure, while those with a medium dietary diversity spanned across various levels of food security status with the majority being food secure, followed by learners who were at risk of food insecurity. Learners
143
with a low dietary diversity, also spanned across various levels of food security status, however the majority were at risk of being food insecure. The association between level dietary diversity and level of food security was highly significant (p<0.000).