Final Report - Linkages Project

%
100
80
60
40
20
0
Percent of children 6-23 months old eating various food groups
(24-hour recall) - (P-values shown for comparison between RAP 2004 and RAP 2005)
97 979597
5 4 3 6
26242723
Grains/Tubers Eggs Legumes Vit A rich
fruts &
vegetables
66 68
505354 4952
39
Other fruits &
vegetables***
27 30
1518
Dairy***
59
49
39 42
75
52
5962
Other animalFoods cooked
source w / fats/oil**
food***
RAP 11/04 RAP 11/05 OD EL PD EL
%
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percent of children 6-23 months old eating various animal source foods
(24-hour recall) - (P-values shown for comparison between RAP 2004 and RAP 2005)
34
30
27
23 25
18
15
17
2
4
3
4
14
28
24 24
5
4
3
6
1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Dairy*** Meat Poultry Fish/shellfish*** Eggs Organ meats Insects/small
animals
RAP 11/04 RAP 11/05 OD EL PD EL
Conclusions:
• For both the end-line and RAP samples, of the mothers surveyed almost half feed their children animal source
foods and foods rich in Vitamin A and more than half use fats/oils to enrich the meals. These values are higher
than those observed in the DHS 2003-04, which found only 27% of children reported to be eating animal source
foods (including eggs) and only 30% eating fats/oil.
• There were also signs of improvements in dietary diversity, particularly for the specific food groups promoted by
LINKAGES. Data from the RAP04 and the RAP 05 showed that these improvements included more children
eating fruits/vegetables, foods cooked in oil/fats as well as fish/shellfish. Inexplicably there seems to be a
significant drop in the consumption of dairy products in these same samples of children; however, this is the
same level, 16%, as that found in the DHS2003-04.
• It should also be noted that additional analysis showed that the majority of children who received at least one
animal source food in fact were eating more than one animal source food in the preceding 24 hours.
• The PD EL sample shows the best values for dietary diversity across all but one of the food groups. Based on
available data, which is limited, this difference cannot be explained in terms of effects of the project’s activities
versus effects of different characteristics of the PD EL group versus the OD EL group and the RAP samples.
Further analysis shows that none of the seemingly obvious environmental and socio-economic variables fully
account for the high value of the indicators for the PD EL sample. Access to daily markets appears to makes a
difference, rural vs. urban makes a difference, and food insecurity makes a difference. However, when all of
these and other variables are controlled for, there is still a significant difference between the PD EL sample and
the other groups.
28