Effect of enhanced homestead food production on anaemia among Cambodian women and children: A cluster randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is inconsistent evidence on the efficacy of agriculture programmes at improving women and children's anaemia and nutritional status. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a nutrition-sensitive enhanced homestead food production (EHFP) programme on anaemia in women (18-45 years) and children (6-59 months) in rural Cambodia. Secondary outcomes were women's micronutrient status and women and children's anthropometry. In this cluster-randomized controlled trial, 900 households from 90 villages (clusters) were randomized to either (a) home gardens and behaviour change communication (BCC) on nutrition, hygiene, women's empowerment, and marketing (EHFP); (b) home gardens plus fishponds and BCC (EHFP + F); or (c) control (no intervention). Haemoglobin concentration and anthropometry were measured in women and children at baseline and at 22 months. Venous blood samples were collected in a subset of women (n = 450) at baseline and at 22 months. Generalized linear mixed effect models with repeated measures were used to evaluate the difference across groups and the change from baseline to end of study. Ninety clusters, 552 women, and 754 children completed the trial. Compared with control, we found a statistically significant impact on anaemia prevalence in children (-14.0 percentage points; P = 0.02) and retinol binding protein concentrations in women (difference in difference: 0.34; P = 0.02) randomized to EHFP and EHFP + F groups, respectively. No other statistically significant effects on anaemia, nutritional biomarker concentrations, or anthropometry were observed. Future research is needed to examine longer term impacts of EHFP on anthropometry in women and children and into the nutritional causes of anaemia among children in Cambodia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".