Background
Methods
Study design
Setting
Sampling and study population
Quantitative
Characteristics | Cases N = 77 | Controls N = 203 | P value |
---|---|---|---|
Demographic and anthropometric characteristics | |||
Children | |||
Parity, median (IQR) | 4 (3, 7) | 4 (2, 6) | |
WLZ at growth faltering time point in cases, mean (SD) | −3.6 (0.5) | −0.6 (1.1) |
<0.005
a
|
WLZ at 12 months, mean (SD)¥ | −2.1 (1.3)b | −0.8 (1.1)c |
<0.005
a
|
Age in years at time of interview, mean (SD) | 2.9 (0.8) | 2.9 (0.8) | |
Male, n (%) | 48 (58) | 134 (61) | |
One or more children under 5y in household (other than index child) n (%) | 75 (97.4) | 196 (96.6) | |
Carers
| |||
Paternal age, mean, SD | 47.3 (9.7) | 48.7 (12.1) | |
Maternal age, mean, SD | 35 (6.4) | 34 (6.7) | |
Maternal depressive symptoms, n (%) | 10 (13) | 36 (12.4) | |
Carer from 0 to 12 months- mother, n (%) | 77 (100) | 199 (98) | |
Mothers have freedom to move around without escort | 76 (98.7) | 198 (99.5) | |
Environmental
| |||
Distance from MRC clinic in km, median (IQR) | 17 (10, 23) | 13 (5, 23) | |
Population size of village, median (IQR) | 768 (528, 1265) | 768 (610, 1265) | |
Socioeconomic status | |||
Education level of mother | |||
No formal education | 23(30) | 40 (20) | |
Arabic school | 40 (52) | 122 (61) | |
Less than primary school | 8 (10) | 24 (12) | |
Completed primary school | 6 (8) | 9 (5) | |
Completed secondary school | 0 | 4 (2) | |
Mother’s income | |||
Farming | 65 (86) | 163 (82) | |
Business | 4 (5) | 7 (3) | |
Salary | 2 (3) | 1 (1) | |
Other | 5 (6) | 28 (14) | |
Guaranteed monthly income | 6 (8) | 10 (5) | |
Housing status | |||
Number of rooms in for sleeping household, median (IQR) | 2 (2,3) | 2 (2,3) | |
Number of people in household past 6 months, median (IQR) | 6 (4,8) | 5 (4,7) | |
Water and sanitation | |||
Toilets, n (%)¥ | |||
Flushing | 0 (0) | 1 (<1) | |
VIP latrine | 1 (1) | 2 (1) | |
Traditional pit latrine | 70 (92) | 190 (95) | |
No toilet | 5 (7) | 5 (3) | |
Water source past 6 m, n (%) | |||
Piped water in house | 0 (0) | 1 (<1) | |
Covered public well | 0 (0) | 3 (2) | |
Public tap | 69 (91) | 173 (87) | |
Open public well | 5 (7) | 10 (5) | |
Open well in compound | 0 (0) | 1 (<1) | |
Deep tube well | 2(3) | 11 (6) | |
Accessibility to water, n (%) | |||
Less than 30 min | 75 (97) | 192 (96) | |
30 min or more | 2 (3) | 7 (4) | |
Ability to fetch drinking water daily, n (%) | 75 (97) | 196 (98) | |
Number of daily trips for water, median (IQR) | 5 (4,6) | 5 (4,6) | – |
Water purification for drinking water done | 26 (34) | 76 (38) | |
Water purification method, n (%)¥ | |||
Filtration through cloth | 25 (96) | 76 (100) | |
Filtration through ceramic | 1 (4) | 0 (0) | |
Principal component analysis 1
| |||
Wealth quintiles, n (%) | |||
1 (Poorest) | 30(39) | 63 (31) | |
2 | 19 (25) | 54 (27) | |
3 | 1(<1) | 8 (4) | |
4 | 11 (14) | 41 (20) | |
5 (Wealthiest) | 16 (21) | 37 (18) | |
Infant feeding and care practices | |||
Breastfeeding and complementary feeding | |||
Ever breastfed¥ | 76 (100) | 194 (100) | |
Age breastfeeding stopped, months, median (IQR) | 24 (20, 24) | 24 (20, 24) | |
Age of introducing complementary foods, months, mean (SD) (prospective data collection) | 5.2 (1.2) | 5.1 (1.3) | |
Commonest complementary food-coos (maize meal) porridge, n (%) | 54 (65.1) | 155 (70.1) | |
Mode of feeding-spoon n (%) | 75 (97) | 198 (98) | |
Frequency of complementary feeds, mean (SD) | 4 (1.0) | 3 (0.9) | |
Frequency of feeding per day, n (%)
| |||
X1 | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | |
X2 | 6 (7) | 17 (8) | |
X3 | 26 (34) | 114 (58) | |
X4 | 30 (40) | 46 (23) | |
X5 | 11 (15) | 15 (8) | |
Greater than X5 | 3 (4) | 5 (2) | |
Scheduled feeding, n (%) | 52 (70) | 142 (72) | |
Own bowl at feeding time, n (%) | 75 (97) | 198 (98) | |
Decision-maker for feeding of infant
| |||
Mother alone | 68 (90) | 188 (95) | |
Mother and father | 6 (7) | 8(4) | |
Mother and mother in law | 2 (3) | 1 (<1) | |
Mother and other | 0 (0) | 1 (<1) | |
Decision-maker for medical care of infant
| |||
Mother alone | 51 (67) | 135 (68) | |
Mother and father | 23 (30) | 60 (30) | |
Mother and mother in law | 2 (3) | 3 (2) | |
Mother and other | 0 | 1 (<1) | |
Hand washing ¥
| |||
Water alone | 7 (9) | 17 (9) | |
Water and soap | 70 (91) | 181 (91) | |
Water and mud or clay | 0 (0) | 1 (<1) | |
Health status of infants and siblings | |||
Illness episodes in index child | |||
Diarrhoea, median (IQR) | 2 (1, 4) | 2 (1,4) | |
Morbidity, median (IQR) | 10 (6, 14) | 9 (6,13) | |
Number who died in first 12 months, n (%) | 4 (5) | 2 (<1) | |
Number died after 12 months, n (%) | 1(<1)) | 1 (<1) | |
Sibling | |||
No sibling deaths, n (%) | 22 (29) | 65 (32) | |
Age in months of sibling who most recently died, median (IQR) | 6 (2, 7) | 2 (1, 5) |
Qualitative
Quantitative
Qualitative
Data analysis
Quantitative
Qualitative
Results
Quantitative
Comparison of characteristics of cases and controls
Maternal and socioeconomic factors
Infant feeding
Illness episodes in infancy
Sibling deaths
Risk factors for severe wasting
Variables | Unadjusted OR (95% CI) | P value |
---|---|---|
Carer factors
| ||
Current carer | 1.03 (0.30–3.46) | 1.00 |
Mother | 1.00 | |
Father lives in household | 0.73 (0.44–1.22) | 0.23 |
Father not in household | 1.00 | |
Carer education | 0.79 (0.52–1.20) | 0.33 |
No carer education | 1.00 | |
Maternal age | 1.02 (0.98, 1.06) | 0.34 |
Maternal age 21 years | 1.00 | |
Paternal age | 1.00 (0.96–1.01) | 0.48 |
Paternal age 25 years | 1.00 | |
No monthly income for mother | 2 (0.65–6.12) | 0.23 |
Monthly income for mother | 1.00 | |
Children under 5y in household | 1.39 (0.96–2.01) | 0.09 |
No children under 5y | 1.00 | |
Maternal depressive symptoms | 1.18 (0.54–2.61) | 0.68 |
No maternal depression | 1.00 | |
Other makes decision to seek medical care | 1.09 (0.62–1.90) | 0.78 |
Mother makes decision to seek medical care | 1.00 | |
Principal component 1 (socioeconomic measure) | 1.07 (0.89–1.29) | 0.48 |
Lowest quintile | 1.00 | |
Principal component 2 (socioeconomic measure) | 0.86 (0.68–1.10) | 0.19 |
Lowest quintile | 1.00 | |
Infant factors
| ||
Parity | 1.01 (0.90–1.14) | 0.82 |
Index child only child | 1.00 | |
Age breastfeeding stopped | 1.0 (0.93–1.10) | 0.93 |
0 months | 1.00 | |
Age of introducing complementary feeds (prospective) | 1.09 (0.86–1.39) | 0.47 |
1 month | 1.00 | |
Other decides on type complementary food for infant | 1.09 (0.62–1.90) | 0.78 |
Mother decides on type of complementary food for infant | 1.00 | |
Frequency of complementary feeds (1–8) | 1.51 (1.13–2.01) |
0.005
|
Feeds once a day | 1.00 | |
Other feeds infant | 0.81 (0.26–2.50) | 0.72 |
Mother feeds infant | 1.00 | |
No scheduled feed | 1.11(0.61–2.04) | 0.74 |
Scheduled feeding | 1.00 | |
Illness episodes in infancy
| ||
Diarrhoea episodes | 0.96 (0.84–1.09) | 0.51 |
No diarrhoea episodes | 1.00 | |
Morbidity | 1.02 (0.96–1.07) | 0.53 |
No morbidity | 1.00 | |
Sibling factors
| ||
Sibling death | 1.04 (0.55–1.94) | 0.91 |
No sibling death | 1.00 | |
Environmental factors
| ||
Number of people sleeping in household | 1.90 (0.99–1.21) | 0.09 |
2 people | 1.00 | |
Number of rooms in household | 1.24 (1.00–1.60) | 0.10 |
1 room | 1.00 | |
Source of water more than 30 min Source of drinking water less than 30 | 0.75 (0.14–4.00) | 0.74 |
minutes | 1.00 | |
Drinking water for household fetched daily Drinking water for household not fetched | 0.59(0.10–3.56) | 0.57 |
daily | 1.00 | |
Increasing trips for fetching drinking water | 0.94 (0.82–1.10) | 0.47 |
One water trip | 1.00 | |
Water treatment | 0.85 (0.48–1.50) | 0.57 |
No water treatment | 1.00 | |
No toilet in compound | 3 (0.78–11.51) | 0.11 |
Toilet in compound | 1.00 | |
Hand washing without soap | 1.10 (0.44–2.72) | 0.84 |
Hand wash with soap | 1.00 |
Variables | OR, 95% CI | P value |
---|---|---|
Carer factors
| ||
Maternal depressive symptoms | 1.37 (0.32–6.00) | 0.67 |
No depression | 1.00 | |
Maternal age | 1.03 (0.91–1.18) | 0.64 |
Maternal age 21 years | 1.00 | |
Paternal age | 0.95 (0.88–1.02) | 0.15 |
Paternal age 25 years | ||
Sibling death | 0.47 (0.11–2.00) | 0.30 |
No sibling death | 1.00 | |
Principal component 1 (lower socioeconomic measure) | 1.23 (0.88–1.72) | 0.23 |
Lowest quintile | 1.00 | |
Principal component 2 (lower socioeconomic measure) | 1.19 (0.71–1.98) | 0.50 |
Lowest quintile | 1.00 | |
Infant factors
| ||
Parity | 0.99 (0.76–1.28) | 0.92 |
Index child only child | 1.00 | |
Age breastfeeding stopped | 1.05 (0.90–1.19) | 0.53 |
0 months | 1.00 | |
Age of starting complementary feeds (prospective) | 0.89 (0.71–1.11) | 0.30 |
1 month | 1.00 | |
Frequency of complementary foods (1–8) | 2.06 (1.17–3.62) |
0.01
|
Feeds once a day | 1.00 | |
No scheduled feeding | 2.21 (0.56–8.64) | 0.26 |
Scheduled feeding | 1.00 | |
Other feeds infant | 0.45 (0.05–4.00) | 0.47 |
Mother feeds infant | 1.00 | |
Other makes decision to seek health care | 1.42 (0.47–4.34) | 0.54 |
Mother makes decision to seek medical care | 1.00 | |
Illness episodes in infancy
| ||
Diarrhoea episodes | 0.82 (0.62–1.09) | 0.51 |
No diarrhoea episodes | 1.00 | |
Morbidity | 1.02 (0.96–1.07) | 0.53 |
No morbidity | 1.00 | |
Environmental factors
| ||
Water treatment | 0.31 (0.09–1.04) |
0.06
|
No water treatment | 1.00 | |
Drinking water for household fetched daily | 0.88 (0.64–1.21) | 0.44 |
Drinking water for household not fetched daily | 1.00 | |
Number of people sleeping in house | 1.02 (0.81–1.30) | 0.85 |
2 people | 1.00 |
Qualitative
Support networks
Under these circumstances, mothers were therefore unable to quantify the amount of food their infants had consumed and often assumed they were full when they stopped crying or feeding.“Yes, because if the mother leaves the child at home with the younger ones who cannot take care of that child, for example...I met the child eating with a dog. You see, and whilst the elder sister was there who could not even take care of that child. When I asked, she said the mother had gone to the garden...” (Field worker, 150211_003)
In addition, mothers also thrived on a supportive marital relationship with their husbands and this seemed to enhance their ability to make decisions in line with the infant feeding and rearing strategies. Mothers were the primary decision makers on matters pertaining to infant feeding and rearing, including accessing preventative or minor illness health care services that were often accessible on foot. This is because, their husbands, apart from those who worked for the MRC or were government health care workers (HCWs), had limited knowledge of the infant feeding and rearing guidance and therefore relied heavily on the mothers to make these choices. However, when their infants were very sick and required admission to the MRC Keneba clinic, mothers sought the financial support of their husbands for transportation.“Fathers actually have a role to play, because fathers should stand in the care of both the mother and the child. Both the mother and father own the child. … father’s role is to buy soap for the mother, in order to launder and if he (infant) starts to eat, you can buy food stuff which will benefit him (infant) and give to the mother to give him. But for today if you want to leave him in the care of the mother only, “baa fele a,amang semboo soto” (the mother is not financially strong)”…. (Mother, control_MAL130J, Bajana)
Although, the regular pastime for men in the West Kiang is to sit in the “bantaba” (a traditional meeting place for the men of the village), when not engaged in agriculture or male-led work, some husbands recognised the domestic pressures that the mothers were under, reflected on this and considered/admitted to offering practical assistance to their wives (mothers) so that the care of the infant was optimised, despite this being culturally alien. For them the aims were to support the mother but also their infants.“Yes, if they involve themselves in, it will give better care to the children. When a mother doesn’t have something and you the father have it then you put it there. …it will also add the child care. But if the mother doesn’t have it and you (husband) too did not do it, caretaking will not take place. He (infant) will be left out to get sick.” (Mother, case_MAL019P, Kuli Kunda)
Mothers also felt that the practical involvement of their husbands in the care of their infants enhanced their nutrition. Mothers mentioned support such as feeding, bathing and taking the infant to the clinic to enabled the mother to complete her tasks and therefore had time to give appropriate attention to the feeding of their infants.“Yes I (husband/father) helped the mother in that because the reason why I helped her, I like myself that is why. I know that she alone cannot do all that… If she is at one place, I can also be at the other place because to leave it with her alone, she is not a slave. We are all marriage partners. … I do not leave my wives. I always help them. And in terms of hygiene, I helped them there too. Because I clear my environment, I tell them “make this place and make the other place”. If you want the children’s health, you have to take care of your place. If you do not take care of them, there will be no health.” (Father, case_MAL008F, Jali)
However, when this support from their husbands was not forthcoming e.g. due to abandonment of mothers and their children because of marital tension or the cultural union of widows with a close male relative; the mothers relied more heavily on the support of the maternal grandmother/parents or peers. This support was less reliable as often these parties themselves relied on financial support from elsewhere. Under these circumstances, mothers found that this constrained their ability to adhere to the infant feeding recommendations, by limiting their options for enriching the popular complementary food pap. In desperation, some mothers opted to increase the breastmilk content in the diets of their over 6-month-old infants and gave less or no complementary food, which was presumably detrimental to the nutritional status of their infants.“Yes they also have a role to play. That is because a child is closer to the wife that is why caretaking starts with the wife. But the husband also has a role. … The child’s needs should also be the role of the husband. The needs such as make him clean, and should feed him. Like in the case of feeds, whatever your earnings can allow you to afford, you should give to the child because that will improve his health.” (Mother, case_MAL015R, Jali)
Within the homesteads paternal grandmothers were often elderly and mothers perceived their contribution to the care of infants as being mainly to carry them while the mothers undertook their domestic chores. Their role in infant feeding and rearing therefore appeared to be marginal with mothers opting to use the recommended infant feeding information from health care workers (HCWs) in their decision-making processes.“…I just noticed that when I asked him to do… he did not do it. When I ask from him once, twice and thrice, and he does not do it, I never bother myself to tell him again. When I go to my people if on a particular day they too do not have it, then I leave it. I do not cook for him on that day and keep it for him, I then breastfeed him.” (Mother, case_MAL019P, Kuli Kunda)“You see a man; he may sit without digging toilet at home. He will not buy soap and will not buy anything. You will be responsible of putting everything in your food. You will buy soap and there is no toilet in the compound. That can bring difficulty.” (Mother, case_MAL041S, Nyorro Jattaba)
Peer support also proved critical when a mother was bereaved and therefore not able to care for her infant and young children. In these situations, her peers would take on the care of the children until she was able to herself but duration of this support was variable and appeared to depend on a mother’s ability to maintain good social interactions with her peers.“Yes, I spread the information among the women at our “bantabato” (meeting ground) to tell the women that we should all do it that way. ... I myself get up and ask them to give me my child to breastfeed.” (Mother, control_MAL256C, Jali)
Infant feeding difficulties
Some infants refused to take pap and in food insecure households, mothers had no alternatives to offer so opted to increase the amount of breast milk in their diet, including those over 6 months of age. In adequately resourced households, mothers tried alternatives such as ground rice or potato powder, which some infants preferred and were therefore able to receive adequate volumes of complementary feeds. In addition, these infants were “force fed” by mothers who were desperate to ensure that they were adequately fed.“When he was a baby, N (mother) did not have milk. That disturbs her and it makes her to prepare food for him early, which can make him stop crying. …When we started cooking food for him, he stopped crying. When he eats until belly full, then he keeps quiet and sleeps for sometimes lying without disturbing anybody on anything.” (Father, case_MAL035Z, Jiffarong)
“…Then when I cook and was giving to him, he doesn’t agree to drink. No matter how I force him, he takes it out. Now I cook porridge for him and later stop cooking it because he doesn’t want to drink it. I only give him breast milk.” (Mother, case_MAL065Y, Karantaba)
Maternal psychological stressors
Ill health of child
Death
In this community, widows had limited autonomy in decision making for themselves or their children. In addition to grieving for the loss of their husband, the cultural practice that required them to remarry a male relative of the deceased (levirate marriage) sometimes exposed them and their children to adverse psychosocial circumstances as they were often remarried as the third or fourth wife to husbands who did not have the resources to support them adequately. This in turn limited a mother’s ability to care for her infant optimally.“When a human being dies, and now moves from you, it makes you sad. But it is God that created death. And also in terms of Islam, if you want to do it in another way, it diminishes your Islam. I was very used to him (deceased child) truly speaking when he was with me. When he was taken from me, I felt that someone was taken from me but I then held onto this that it is God who gave me and when He was giving to me I was not aware of it. Therefore, now if He is in need of him and I can take it to be God’s property.” (Mother, case_ MAL015R_Jali)
Lack of autonomy in child spacing
“… because you may have a child less than 2 years and you later have another one who is less than 1 year you then conceive another one. Now if you want to take care of them, one is just removed from breastfeeding, the other is lactating and pregnant with another. That caring becomes difficult.” (Mother, control_MAL138F, Jiffarong)