Dietary diversity feeding practice and its associated factors among children age 6–23 months in Ethiopia from 2011 up to 2018: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally Less than one fourth of children aged 6-23 months get the recommended minimum dietary diversity feeding practice. Despite this issue is common in Ethiopia, fragmented and inconsistent findings were found. Therefore the main objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled prevalence of dietary diversity feeding practice and to identify its associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in Ethiopia. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline was followed. Articles were systematically searched through PubMed, Google scholar, Google, Hinari and Cochrane library. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies quality assessment tool was used to assess the quality of each study. A total of 14 studies were extracted and analyzed using STATA 14. Random effect model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence; whereas subgroup analysis and meta-regression was performed to identify the probable source of heterogeneity. Both egger's and begg's test were used to check publication bias. Furthermore, the effect between associated factor variables, and dietary diversity feeding practices were examined. RESULTS: = 98.8, p = 0.00). In the subgroup analysis, the lowest prevalence was observed in Amhara region (12.58%). Home delivery OR: 0.63, antenatal care follow up OR: 1.80, postnatal care visit OR: 2.61, mothers decision making status OR: 1.65, mothers media exposure status OR: 2.79 and being urban residence OR: 2.18 (1.26, 3.77) were significant factors for minimum dietary diversity feeding practice in Ethiopia. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled prevalence of dietary diversity feeding practice among children aged 6-23 months in Ethiopia was low. Place of delivery, post natal care, antenatal care service, mothers decision making status, mothers media exposure status and being urban residence were found to be the significant factors.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".