An Integrated Enhanced Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) and Micronutrient Powder Intervention Improved Select IYCF Practices Among Caregivers of Children Aged 12–23 Months in Eastern Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little evidence of the impact of integrated programs distributing nutrition supplements with behavior change on infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the impact of an integrated IYCF/micronutrient powder intervention on IYCF practices among caregivers of children aged 12-23 mo in eastern Uganda. METHODS: = 2816). Caregivers were interviewed in June/July at baseline in 2015 and 12 mo after implementation in 2016. We used generalized linear mixed models with cluster as a random effect to calculate the average intervention effect on receiving IYCF counseling, ever breastfed, current breastfeeding, bottle feeding, introducing complementary feeding at age 6 mo, continued breastfeeding at ages 1 and 2 y, minimum meal frequency (MMF), minimum dietary diversity, minimum acceptable diet (MAD), and consumption of food groups the day preceding the survey. RESULTS: Controlling for child age and sex, household wealth and food security, and caregiver schooling, the intervention was positively associated with having received IYCF counseling by village health team [adjusted prevalence difference-in-difference (APDiD): +51.6%; 95% CI: 44.0%, 59.2%]; timely introduction of complementary feeding (APDiD: +21.7%; 95% CI: 13.4%, 30.1%); having consumed organs or meats (APDiD: +9.0%; 95% CI: 1.4%, 16.6%) or vitamin A-rich fruits or vegetables (APDiD: +17.5%; 95% CI: 4.5%, 30.5%); and MMF (APDiD: +18.6%; 95% CI: 11.2%, 25.9%). The intervention was negatively associated with having consumed grains, roots, or tubers (APDiD: -4.4%; 95% CI: -7.0%, -1.7%) and legumes, nuts, or seeds (APDiD: -15.6%; 95% CI: -26.2%, -5.0%). Prevalences of some IYCF practices were low in Amuria at endline including MAD (19.1%; 95% CI :16.3%, 21.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had a positive impact on several IYCF practices; however, endline prevalence of some indicators suggests a continued need to improve complementary feeding practices.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".