Participating in a Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture Intervention Is Not Associated with Less Maternal Time for Care in a Rural Ghanaian District
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA) interventions may increase farm-related work for mothers, with consequences for child nutrition. The Nutrition Links (NL) intervention provided mothers with poultry, gardening inputs, technical support, and education to improve livelihoods and child nutrition outcomes in rural Ghana. Our objective was to compare time allocated to child care by a cross-section of mothers in the intervention group of the NL intervention with the control group (NCT01985243). A cross-section of NL mother-child pairs was included in a time allocation substudy [intervention (NL-I) n = 74 and control (NL-C) n = 69]. In-home observations of the mother-child pair were conducted for 1 min, every 5 min, for 6 h. Observations were categorized into 4 nonoverlapping binary variables as follows: 1) maternal direct care, 2) maternal supervisory care, 3) allocare, and 4) no direct supervision. Allocare was defined as care by another person in the presence or absence of the mother. Any care was defined as the observation of maternal direct care, maternal supervisory care, or allocare. Generalized linear mixed models with binomial data distribution were used to compare the child care categories by group, adjusting for known covariates. Maternal direct care (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.28) and any care (OR = 1.56; 95% CI: 0.91, 2.67) did not differ by intervention group. However, there was a higher odds of allocare (OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.79) in NL-I than in NL-C women. Maternal participation in an NSA intervention was not associated with a decrease in time spent directly on child care but was associated with an increase in care from other household and community members. The http://www.clinicaltrials.gov number provided is for the main NL intervention and not this current substudy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".