Undernutrition, polygynous context and family structure: a multilevel analysis of cross-sectional surveys of 350 000 mother–child pairs from 32 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contextual factors, especially where people live, has been linked to various health outcomes, therefore, there is an increasing focus on its implication for policies and implementation of health interventions. Polygyny is a widespread practice in sub-Saharan Africa that also reflects socioeconomic and sociocultural features. This study investigated the association between polygynous context and risk of undernutrition. METHODS: Recent Demographic and Health Surveys involving 350 000 mother-child pairs from 32 sub-Saharan African countries conducted between 2010 and 2018 as of March 2020, were analysed using relevant descriptive and 3-level multilevel logistic regression modelling. Undernutrition among under-5 was defined as underweight, stunting and wasting using the WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study. Odd Ratio (OR) at 95% credible interval was used to report the associations. RESULTS: The prevalence of contextual polygyny varied widely across the 32 sub-Saharan African countries, the lowest (0%) found in one of the regions in South Africa and the highest (52%) in one of the regions in Uganda. Underweight, stunting and wasting were lowest in Uganda (3.5%, 9.3%-1.27%, respectively), stunting was highest in Mozambique (37.1%) while wasting was highest in Niger (7.7%). Furthermore, the results showed that the contextual prevalence of polygynous practice exacerbates the risk of underweight (1.003 (0.997-1.008)) and wasting (1.014 (1.007-1.021)) among under-5 children, even when gender inequality and sociodemographic indicators were adjusted for. Polygyny was negatively associated with stunting though not significant; multiple births had the strongest and positive association with the risk of undernutrition among under-5 children in sub-Saharan Africa. CONCLUSIONS: This study further corroborates the strong influence of contextual factors on health outcomes-which is undernutrition in this study. In addition to specific interventions aimed at reducing the prevalence of undernutrition, broader strategies that will address contextual issues are required.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".