Scaled-up nutrition education on pulse-cereal complementary food practice in Ethiopia: a cluster-randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving children's weight status through nutrition education (NE) for mothers about using pulses in complementary feeding has been demonstrated in pilot studies, but no effect on stunting was reported. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of a 9-month pulse-nutrition education program on improving mothers' knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) towards pulses, as well as its effect on children's diet diversity, and nutritional status. The NE was delivered by Health Extension Workers (HEWs). METHODS: A cluster randomized study was employed for the community-based interventional study. Twelve randomly selected villages in Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia were included in the study. A total of 772 mother-child pairs involved in the study; where 386 mother-child pairs in the intervention group received additional messages about pulse-cereal complementary food, and 386 pairs (the control) received only routine health education for 9 months. A survey on mothers' KAP and anthropometric measurements of the children were taken at baseline, midpoint, and end point. ANOVA and descriptive statistics were used to analyzed data. RESULTS: At baseline and end point, maternal KAP and the dietary diversity score of the children (mean age at end point 18.8 ± 2.9 mo) were assessed. Intervention mothers' KAP improved (p < 0.001) at midpoint and end point compared to that of the control group, as did frequency of pulse consumption and Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) among children. At 9 months, the prevalence of stunting, wasting, and underweight was significantly reduced in the intervention group compared to the control group (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: NE delivered by HEWs improved KAP of mothers regarding pulse consumption and dietary diversity of children led to improved nutritional status of the children. Training HEWs on the use of pulses for complementary food may be an effective way to improve the health of children in Ethiopian communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov # NCT02638571 . Date of registration: 12/18/2015. Prospectively registered.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".