Skip to main content

Table 4 Effect of the intervention on nutrition status through changes in feeding frequency: Instrumental variable random effects regression

From: Improving feeding and growth of HIV-positive children through nutrition training of frontline health workers in Tanga, Tanzania

Variable

Underweight-model

Thinness-model

β

95% CI

P

β

95% CI

P

First stage: Changes in feeding frequency at 6 months post-intervention

 Intervention*follow-up

1.15

0.98, 1.31

<0.001

1.19

1.08, 1.30

<0.001

 Intervention

0.12

−0.03, 0.26

0.129

0.12

−0.07, 0.31

0.226

 Follow-up

0.39

0.27, 0.51

<0.001

0.41

0.33, 0.49

<0.001

 Age

−0.01

−0.01, 0.01

0.849

−0.01

−0.01, 0.01

0.225

 Sex

−0.06

−0.18, 0.06

0.333

0.11

−0.02, 0.25

0.111

 Caregiver’s education

0.02

−0.08, 0.12

0.671

−0.01

−0.09, 0.08

0.918

 Wealth index

0.04

−0.01, 0.09

0.100

0.01

−0.01, 0.08

0.079

 Food insecurity

0.01

−0.01, 0.01

0.892

−0.03

−0.01, 0.01

0.380

Second stage: random effects regression: changes in nutrition status as a result of changes in feeding frequency

 Feeding frequency

−0.15

−0.24, −0.07

<0.001

−0.04

−0.08, 0.01

0.059

 Intervention

−0.07

−0.16, 0.02

0.133

−0.03

−0.11, 0.05

0.402

 Follow-up

0.12

0.03, 0.21

0.012

0.01

−0.03, 0.06

0.541

 Age

0.01

0.01, 0.01

0.018

0.01

0.01, 0.01

<0.001

 Sex

−0.02

−0.09, 0.05

0.575

−0.01

−0.06, 0.05

0.832

 Caregiver’s education

−0.01

−0.06, 0.05

0.917

−0.02

−0.06, 0.01

0.204

 Wealth index

−0.02

−0.05, 0.01

0.083

−0.01

−0.02, 0.01

0.691

 Food insecurity

0.01

−0.01, 0.01

0.514

−0.01

−0.01, 0.01

0.154

  1. Intervention*follow-up = interaction term between intervention and follow-up
  2. Intervention: subjects at the intervention compared to control arm
  3. Follow-up: subjects at the follow-up compared to the baseline