Participation in communal day care centre feeding programs is associated with higher diet quantity but not quality among rural Ghanaian children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communal School Feeding Programs (SFP) are based on local foods brought by children from home which are cooked and shared at school. These programs may be a sustainable food-based strategy for improving children’s diets in low-resource areas. The objective of this study was to compare the dietary intakes of children who attend Day Care Centres (DCC) with communal SFP to children who do not attend any DCC or school in rural Ghana. Interviewer-administered questionnaires were used to collect dietary and other household information for 104 DCC and 89 non-DCC children aged two to five years living in two communities. In addition, the DCC lunches (ingredients and servings of each food preparation) were weighed. The Day Care Centres’ lunch was higher in energy (by 64 kcal; p<0.001), but lower in calcium (by 18 mg; p=0.002), iron (by 1.3 mg; p<0.001) and zinc (by 0.2 mg; p=0.046) than the non-DCC lunch. DCC children ate more times in a day (4.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.4 ± 0.6, p<0.001), had greater dietary diversity (7.2 ± 0.6 vs. 6.7 ± 1.0 food groups, p<0.001) and had higher daily intakes of energy (1140 ± 320 vs. 878 ± 240 kcal; p<0.001), calcium (282 ± 139 vs. 244 ± 118 mg; p=0.048), iron (12.4 ± 6.4 vs. 10.7 ± 4.7 mg; p=0.048) and zinc (0.40 ± 0.15 vs. 0.35 ± 0.11 mg; p=0.019) than non-DCC children. However, after controlling for total energy intake and other dietary, health and sociodemographic variables, daily iron and zinc intakes were lower in the DCC compared to the non-DCC group. Participation in the communal SFP was associated with higher quantity but not quality of children’s diets. Communal SFP offer an opportunity to address specific population’s micronutrient needs, using interventions to improve dietary quality such as point-of-use fortification, commercially fortified foods, or processed animal source food products.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".