Skip to main content

Table 5 Effect of the intervention on nutrition status through changes in dietary diversity: Instrumental variable random effect 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

Intervention*follow-up

1.11

0.94, 1.28

<0.001

1.10

0.96, 1.24

<0.001

Intervention

−0.08

−0.22, 0.07

0.310

−0.07

−0.19, 0.05

0.254

Follow-up

0.48

0.35, 0.60

<0.001

0.46

0.36, 0.56

<0.001

Age

0.01

−0.01, 0.01

0.911

−0.01

−0.01, 0.01

0.349

Sex

−0.06

−0.17, 0.06

0.354

0.01

−0.10, 0.10

0.973

Caregiver’s education

0.03

−0.07, 0.13

0.544

0.02

−0.06, 0.10

0.629

Wealth index

0.01

−0.04, 0.06

0.583

0.01

−0.03, 0.04

0.865

Food insecurity

−0.01

−0.02, −0.01

0.001

−0.01

−0.02, −0.01

<0.001

Second stage: random effects regression: changes in nutrition status as a result of changes in dietary diversity

Variable

Underweight (WAZ < −2SD)

Thinness (BMIAZ < −2SD)

β

95% CI

P

β

95% CI

P

Dietary diversity

−0.16

−0.25,-0.07

0.001

−0.05

−0.10, 0.01

0.078

Intervention

−0.10

−0.18,-0.01

0.022

−0.04

−0.09, 0.01

0.121

Follow-up

0.13

0.03, 0.24

0.015

0.03

−0.04, 0.09

0.408

Age

0.01

0.01, 0.01

0.021

0.01

0.01, 0.01

<0.001

Sex

−0.02

−0.09, 0.05

0.614

−0.01

−0.05, 0.04

0.887

Caregiver’s education

0.01

−0.06, 0.21

0.934

−0.03

−0.07, 0.01

0.073

Wealth index

−0.03

−0.06, 0.06

0.047

−0.01

−0.03, 0.01

0.108

Food insecurity

−0.01

−0.01, 0.01

0.684

−0.01

−0.01,-0.01

0.022

  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