A Nutrition Education Intervention Affects the Diet‐Health Related Practices and Nutritional Status of Mothers and Children in a Pulse‐growing Community in Halaba, south Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A six‐month nutrition education intervention on pulse and other food consumption was conducted in mothers of children under‐5 in the pulse‐growing region of Halaba, south Ethiopia. The intervention incorporated the health belief model, on Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP), and objective measures included dietary diversity scores (DDS), dietary intakes and nutritional status. Between March 2013–April 2014, 200 mother‐child pairs, randomly selected from each of two purposively selected communities participated in an intervention‐control study. A six‐month nutrition education program, involving interactive monthly community meetings and home‐visits, was offered to one of the communities and the other served as a control. Demographics, KAP, food perceptions, DDS, dietary and anthropometric information were collected at baseline and endline. Focus group discussions (FGD) with local farmers also occurred. Significant improvements in the intervention group were found from baseline to endline for the following outcome variables: KAP and perceptions of pulse nutrition benefits among mothers; DDS and pulse and animal source food consumption indexes for both mothers and children; and mean body‐mass index‐for‐age (BMI‐for‐age) z‐score and wasting among children. Farmers in the FDG also expressed improved intention to produce and retain more pulses for home consumption. No such changes were found in the control community. Community‐based nutrition education interventions involving monthly interactive community meetings and home‐visits in traditional pulse‐growing communities could be effective in improving mothers' knowledge of pulse nutrition and consumption frequency. Such interventions can lead to increasing DDS in mothers and their children, and decreasing underweight and wasting among children in rural Ethiopia. Support or Funding Information The research was supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Global Affairs Canada, Government of Canada, through the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund (CIFSRF)
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".