Assessment of Nutritional Status of under-five year rural children in ...
Assessment of Nutritional Status of under-five year rural children in ...
Assessment of Nutritional Status of under-five year rural children in ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Assessment</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>under</strong>-<strong>five</strong> <strong>year</strong> <strong>rural</strong> <strong>children</strong> <strong>in</strong> the Districts <strong>of</strong><br />
Madhya Pradesh State<br />
District: SHIVPURI<br />
Morena<br />
Bh<strong>in</strong>d<br />
Sheoppur<br />
Gwalior<br />
Datia<br />
Shivpuri<br />
Neemuch<br />
Mandsaur<br />
Ratlam Ujja<strong>in</strong><br />
Jhabua<br />
Indore<br />
Dhar<br />
Alirajpur<br />
Rajgarh<br />
Shajapur<br />
Dewas<br />
Sehore<br />
Guna<br />
Harda<br />
Bhopal<br />
Ashok<br />
Nagar<br />
Vidisha<br />
Raisen<br />
Hoshangabad<br />
Tikamgarh<br />
Sagar<br />
Narsimhapur<br />
Chh<strong>in</strong>dwara<br />
Chhatarpur<br />
Panna<br />
Damoh<br />
Seoni<br />
Jabalpur<br />
Katni<br />
Mandla<br />
Satna<br />
Umaria<br />
D<strong>in</strong>dori<br />
Rewa<br />
Shahdol<br />
Sidhi<br />
Anuppur<br />
S<strong>in</strong>grauli<br />
Barwani<br />
Khargone<br />
Khandwa<br />
Betul<br />
Balaghat<br />
Burhanpur<br />
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NUTRITION<br />
Indian Council <strong>of</strong> Medical Research<br />
Hyderabad – 500 007<br />
2011
<strong>Assessment</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong><br />
Five <strong>year</strong> Rural <strong>children</strong> <strong>in</strong> the Districts <strong>of</strong><br />
Madhya Pradesh State<br />
- Shivpuri District<br />
G.N.V.Brahmam<br />
K.Venkaiah<br />
A.Laxmaiah<br />
I.I.Meshram<br />
K.Mallikharjuna Rao<br />
Ch.Gal Reddy<br />
Sharad Kumar<br />
M.Rav<strong>in</strong>dranath<br />
K.Sreerama Krishna<br />
National Institute <strong>of</strong> Nutrition<br />
Indian Council <strong>of</strong> Medical Research<br />
Hyderabad – 500 007<br />
2011
CONTENTS<br />
Page No.<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
PROJECT STAFF<br />
RESULTS AT GLANCE<br />
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
i - iii<br />
1. INTRODUCTION 1 - 3<br />
1.1 Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> Shivpuri District 3<br />
2. OBJECTIVES 4<br />
2.1 General Objective 4<br />
2.2 Specific objectives 4<br />
3. METHODOLOGY 4 - 7<br />
3.1 Sampl<strong>in</strong>g Design 4<br />
3.1.1 Sample size 4<br />
3.1.2 Selection <strong>of</strong> Villages 5<br />
3.1.3 Selection <strong>of</strong> Households 5<br />
3.2 Investigations 5<br />
3.2.1 Household socioeconomic and demographic Particulars 5<br />
3.2.2 Anthropometry 5<br />
3.2.3 Cl<strong>in</strong>ical exam<strong>in</strong>ation 5<br />
3.2.4 History <strong>of</strong> Morbidity 6<br />
3.2.5 Maternal Particulars 6<br />
3.2.6 Infant and Young child feed<strong>in</strong>g practices 6<br />
3.2.7 Coverage <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> <strong>under</strong> various health & nutrition<br />
<strong>in</strong>tervention Programmes 6<br />
3.2.8 Spot test<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> household cook<strong>in</strong>g salt for Iod<strong>in</strong>e 6<br />
3.3 Recruitment, tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, standardization <strong>of</strong> field Investigators and<br />
data collection<br />
3.4 Quality Control 7<br />
3.5 Data Analysis 7<br />
4. RESULTS 7 - 17<br />
4.1 Coverage 7<br />
4.2 Household Socio-economic and Demographic particulars 7<br />
4.2.1 Community 7<br />
4.2.2 Type <strong>of</strong> family 7<br />
4.2.3 Family size 8<br />
4.2.4 Literacy status <strong>of</strong> Father 8<br />
4.2.5 Literacy status <strong>of</strong> Mother 8<br />
6<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
4.2.6 Household landhold<strong>in</strong>g 8<br />
4.2.7 Major occupation <strong>of</strong> Father 8<br />
4.2.8 Major occupation <strong>of</strong> Mother 8<br />
4.2.9 Per capita monthly <strong>in</strong>come 8<br />
4.3 Household Physical facilities 8<br />
4.3.1 Type <strong>of</strong> house 8<br />
4.3.2 Household amenities 9<br />
4.4 Iod<strong>in</strong>e content <strong>of</strong> Cook<strong>in</strong>g salt 9<br />
4.5 Maternal characteristics 9<br />
4.5.1 Age and parity <strong>of</strong> mother 9<br />
4.5.2 Particulars <strong>of</strong> last Pregnancy (mothers <strong>of</strong>
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
We express our s<strong>in</strong>cere thanks to Mr. B.R. Naidu, I.A.S, Pr<strong>in</strong>cipal Secretary,<br />
and Smt. T<strong>in</strong>oo Joshi, I.A.S, and Dr. Loveleen Kacker, I.A.S, past Pr<strong>in</strong>cipal<br />
Secretaries, Women and Child Development & Social Justice Department,<br />
Government <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh for provid<strong>in</strong>g us an opportunity to carry out this<br />
study.<br />
Our thanks are due to Ms. Kam<strong>in</strong>i Chauhan I.A.S, Deputy Secretary, Dr.<br />
Anupam Rajan, Director and Shri. Akshaya Srivatsav, Jo<strong>in</strong>t Director, Women and<br />
Child Development Department, Government <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh for their support<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g the study.<br />
We are also thanksful to Shri. Gulshan Bamra, former Director, and Sri Praveen<br />
Kumar Gangrade, former Jt. Director, Women and Child Development Department,<br />
Government <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh, and their colleagues for extend<strong>in</strong>g their cooperation and<br />
help <strong>in</strong> the execution <strong>of</strong> this study.<br />
The <strong>in</strong>frastructural & logistic support extended by Pr<strong>of</strong>. S.K. Trivedi,<br />
Executive Director, Mr. Gokul pal, Research Officer and their colleagues at Indian<br />
Institute <strong>of</strong> Development Management (IIDM), Bhopal is gratefully acknowledged.<br />
Our thanks are also due to UNICEF-Madhya Pradesh and UNICEF-New Delhi<br />
for their support by provid<strong>in</strong>g anthropometric equipment for use <strong>in</strong> this study.<br />
The help and support provided by the Districts Project Officers, Child<br />
Development Project Officers, Supervisors, Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and<br />
ASHA worker (Health functionaries) <strong>of</strong> the concerned districts <strong>in</strong> the execution <strong>of</strong><br />
the survey, is gratefully acknowledged.<br />
Our s<strong>in</strong>cere thanks to the entire field staff for their commitment and<br />
s<strong>in</strong>cere efforts <strong>in</strong> the collection <strong>of</strong> data.<br />
We grateful to Dr. B. Sesikeran, Director, N.I.N and Dr. Vishwa Mohan<br />
Katoch, Director-general, I.C.M.R, and Secretary, Department <strong>of</strong> Health Research,<br />
M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>of</strong> Health and Family Welfare, GoI, for their constant support and<br />
encouragement.<br />
We also thank Mr. G.Manohar Reddy, Research Officer, Mr. R. Raghunath<br />
Babu, Technical Assistant, Mrs. G.Madhavi, Technician, Ms. D.Sarala & G.Madhavi<br />
Tabulators, NNMB-CRL, and Ms. D. Balamani, Ms. D. Saritha & Ms. M. Venkata<br />
Ramanamma, Punch Operators, and Mrs. L. Rajeswari & Mr. M. Shashi Kumar Reddy,<br />
Data Entry Operators for their technical help.<br />
We are also thankful to Mr. G. Hanumantha Rao, and Mrs. G. Prashanthi,<br />
Personal Assistants for their secretarial assistance.<br />
Last but not least, we are extremely grateful to the community for their<br />
unst<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g cooperation, without which the study would not have been completed<br />
successfully.<br />
Authors
PROJECT STAFF<br />
RESEARCH ASSISTANTS<br />
Sl.No.<br />
Name<br />
1 Mr. AMOL KUMAR UKE<br />
2 Mr. PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINGH<br />
FIELD INVESTIGATORS<br />
Sl.No.<br />
Name<br />
1. Mr. DILEEP PATEL<br />
2. Mr. NIKHIL SHARMA<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong> < 5 <strong>year</strong> Children<br />
Shivpuri Dist.- Madhya Pradesh
RESULT AT GLANCE
RESULTS AT A GLANCE<br />
DISTRICT PROFILE<br />
Total population (2001 Census) 14,41,950<br />
Sex Ratio 858<br />
Population density (per sq km) 140<br />
Percent <strong>of</strong> Schedule caste 18.8<br />
Percent <strong>of</strong> Schedule Tribes 11.2<br />
Literacy <strong>Status</strong> (%) 59.6<br />
Female Literacy (%) 41.5<br />
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS<br />
HHs surveyed (n) 395<br />
Average Family size (n) 6.1<br />
Average per capita monthly <strong>in</strong>come (Rs) 834<br />
COMMUNITY (%)<br />
Scheduled Caste 13.7<br />
Scheduled Tribe 28.1<br />
TYPE OF FAMILY (%)<br />
Nuclear 50.9<br />
Extended Nuclear 21.5<br />
Jo<strong>in</strong>t 27.6<br />
LITERACY STATUS (%)<br />
Father 62.0<br />
Mother 33.3<br />
LAND HOLDING (% HHs)<br />
Land less Families 38.0<br />
Marg<strong>in</strong>al Farmers 21.5<br />
Small Farmers 32.4<br />
Large Farmers 8.1<br />
(Contd… 2)<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong> < 5 <strong>year</strong> Children<br />
Shivpuri Dist.- Madhya Pradesh
RESULTS AT A GLANCE (Contd…2)<br />
MAJOR OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD<br />
Percent<br />
Labourers 39.2<br />
Cultivators 46.0<br />
Artisans 3.0<br />
Service 5.6<br />
Bus<strong>in</strong>ess 5.6<br />
Others 0.6<br />
TYPE OF HOUSE<br />
Kutcha 29.6<br />
Semi-Pucca 54.7<br />
Pucca 15.7<br />
SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER<br />
Open well 14.7<br />
Tube well 83.0<br />
Tap 2.3<br />
HOUSEHOLD ELECTRICITY 23.3<br />
PRESENT AND USING SANITARY LATRINE 8.9<br />
IODINE CONTENT OF COOKING SALT<br />
0 ppm 45.6<br />
DELIVERY CONDUCTED BY<br />
RESULTS AT A GLANCE (Contd…3)<br />
BREAST FEEDING AND COMPLEMENTARY FEEDING<br />
Percent<br />
M.O. PHC 54.2<br />
ANM/LHV/TBA 32.5<br />
Pvt. Doctor 2.5<br />
Untra<strong>in</strong>ed Dai/Others 10.8<br />
Low birth weight (% <strong>in</strong>fants) 25.8<br />
Initiate <strong>of</strong> breast feed<strong>in</strong>g (Hours)<br />
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary<br />
Undernutrition cont<strong>in</strong>ues to be a major public health problem <strong>in</strong> the develop<strong>in</strong>g<br />
countries, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g India, the most vulnerable groups be<strong>in</strong>g women and young<br />
<strong>children</strong>. Proper nutrition is necessary for adequate growth and development <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>children</strong>. Undernutrition is <strong>of</strong> multi-factorial aetiology, which <strong>in</strong>clude both food and<br />
non-food factors.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the recent reports <strong>of</strong> NFHS-3 (2005-06), the prevalence <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>under</strong>weight (
About 59% <strong>of</strong> pregnant women had <strong>under</strong>gone Antenatal check-up (ANC) <strong>of</strong><br />
which about 10% had ≥3 ANCs. Only 39% <strong>of</strong> pregnant women were registered for<br />
ANC before 16 weeks <strong>of</strong> gestation. About three fourth (76%) <strong>of</strong> pregnant women<br />
received IFA tablets dur<strong>in</strong>g pregnancy, 29% received more than 90 tablets and about<br />
12% reportedly consumed ≥90 tablets. About 88% deliveries were <strong>in</strong>stitutional<br />
deliveries, either <strong>in</strong> government or private hospitals. Majority (57%) <strong>of</strong> deliveries were<br />
conducted by a medical doctor. Birth weights were reportedly recorded for 71% <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>fants and records were available for the same (71%). The overall prevalence <strong>of</strong> low<br />
birth weight was 26%.<br />
All the <strong>in</strong>terviewed mothers were fed colostrum to their newborns. About 43%<br />
<strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>in</strong>itiated breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> 1hour, 50% did so with<strong>in</strong> 1-3 hours and 6%<br />
<strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>in</strong>itiated breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g between 4 and 11 hours <strong>of</strong> delivery. Pre-lacteal<br />
feeds such as pla<strong>in</strong> water and cow/buffalo milk were given to 3% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>fants.<br />
Among 6-11 months <strong>children</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g was <strong>in</strong>itiated at 6<br />
months <strong>of</strong> age <strong>in</strong> only about 13%, while 35% <strong>children</strong> received the same dur<strong>in</strong>g 7-11<br />
months <strong>of</strong> age. About 47% <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> did not receive complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g. About<br />
52% were receiv<strong>in</strong>g cow/buffalo milk, homemade solids (49%) and homemade semi<br />
solids (23.9%), 45% were receiv<strong>in</strong>g such foods at least 3 times a day.<br />
Among 12-35 months <strong>children</strong>, 57% were receiv<strong>in</strong>g complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
<strong>in</strong> addition to breast milk. Majority were receiv<strong>in</strong>g home made semisolids/solids and<br />
75% were receiv<strong>in</strong>g such foods at least 3 times a day.<br />
About 98% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> were complete immunized. About 95% <strong>of</strong> 9-59<br />
months <strong>children</strong> received at least one dose <strong>of</strong> Vitam<strong>in</strong> A dur<strong>in</strong>g the preced<strong>in</strong>g <strong>year</strong>.<br />
About 98% <strong>of</strong> 18-59 months <strong>children</strong> received the stipulated two doses.<br />
About 8% <strong>of</strong> 12-59 months <strong>children</strong> received ≥90 IFA tablets while none <strong>of</strong><br />
them consumed ≥90 tablets.<br />
None <strong>of</strong> the < 5<strong>year</strong> <strong>children</strong> exhibited the cl<strong>in</strong>ical signs <strong>of</strong> nutritional<br />
deficiency.<br />
About 19% <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> reportedly had one or more features <strong>of</strong> morbidity such<br />
as fever, ARI and diarrhoea dur<strong>in</strong>g the preced<strong>in</strong>g fortnight. The prevalence was<br />
relatively higher among 36-59 months <strong>children</strong>, which tended to decrease with<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
decrease <strong>in</strong> age. About 93% <strong>of</strong> the mothers reported that they generally consult<br />
private practitioner, while 7% visit PHCs to seek treatment for their sick <strong>children</strong>.<br />
The overall prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>nutrition (
1. INTRODUCTION<br />
India, <strong>in</strong> the past few decades, has witnessed rapid progress <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>dustrialization and agricultural production. Yet malnutrition, especially<br />
<strong>under</strong>nutrition cont<strong>in</strong>ues to be a major problem <strong>of</strong> public health significance <strong>in</strong> the<br />
country. It is a major contributor to high rates <strong>of</strong> childhood mortality, maternal<br />
mortality and morbidities <strong>in</strong> the community 1 . Though, poverty is a major <strong>under</strong>ly<strong>in</strong>g<br />
cause, scores <strong>of</strong> other factors such as socio-demographic, socio-cultural and lifestyle<br />
practices contribute significantly to the problem <strong>of</strong> malnutrition.<br />
Prevalence <strong>of</strong> low birth weight, ma<strong>in</strong>ly due to <strong>in</strong>trauter<strong>in</strong>e growth retardation<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>ues to be high, which is attributable to maternal <strong>under</strong>nutrition. This is further<br />
aggravated by <strong>in</strong>appropriate <strong>in</strong>fant and young child feed<strong>in</strong>g practices, such as<br />
discard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> colostrum, delayed <strong>in</strong>itiation <strong>of</strong> breast feed<strong>in</strong>g, early or delayed<br />
<strong>in</strong>itiation <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g, and sub-optimal complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g<br />
practices <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> type <strong>of</strong> feed, quantity, and frequency.<br />
It has been found that non-exclusive breast feed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the first six months <strong>of</strong><br />
life results <strong>in</strong> 1.4 million deaths and 10% <strong>of</strong> the disease burden among <strong>in</strong>fants and<br />
young <strong>children</strong> every <strong>year</strong> <strong>in</strong> the develop<strong>in</strong>g countries 2 . It is also estimated that about<br />
10-15% <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong> <strong>five</strong> <strong>year</strong> deaths <strong>in</strong> resource poor countries could be prevented by<br />
achiev<strong>in</strong>g 90% <strong>of</strong> exclusive breast feed<strong>in</strong>g alone 3 and 22% <strong>of</strong> neonatal deaths could<br />
be prevented if breast feed<strong>in</strong>g is <strong>in</strong>itiated with<strong>in</strong> the first hour <strong>of</strong> birth 4 .<br />
About 21% <strong>of</strong> global deaths and DALYs (Disability Adjusted Life Years) <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>children</strong> younger than 5 <strong>year</strong>s are attributed to stunt<strong>in</strong>g, severe wast<strong>in</strong>g, and<br />
<strong>in</strong>trauter<strong>in</strong>e growth retardation. Long term consequences <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>nutrition dur<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
early stages <strong>of</strong> child growth and development <strong>in</strong>clude likelihood <strong>of</strong> short stature <strong>in</strong><br />
adult life, low educational achievements, giv<strong>in</strong>g birth to smaller <strong>children</strong>, lower<br />
economic status and reduced physical work capacity and productivity <strong>in</strong> adulthood 5 .<br />
Further, the country is pass<strong>in</strong>g through a phase <strong>of</strong> rapid socio-economic<br />
transition lead<strong>in</strong>g to over nutrition <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> segments <strong>of</strong> the population, especially <strong>in</strong><br />
the urban communities. Chang<strong>in</strong>g lifestyles and dietary habits are contribut<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
<strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> the prevalence <strong>of</strong> overweight/obesity among <strong>children</strong> and young adults<br />
expos<strong>in</strong>g them to the risk <strong>of</strong> chronic degenerative disorders such as hypertension,<br />
Type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, cancers etc <strong>in</strong> the later part <strong>of</strong> life.<br />
More over <strong>under</strong>nutrition dur<strong>in</strong>g early childhood can lead to overweight/obesity <strong>in</strong><br />
adulthood, a risk factor for diet related chronic diseases 6 .<br />
The major nutritional problems <strong>of</strong> public health significance <strong>in</strong> the country are,<br />
prote<strong>in</strong> energy malnutrition (PEM), vitam<strong>in</strong> A deficiency (VAD), iron deficiency<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
anaemia (IDA), and iod<strong>in</strong>e deficiency disorders (IDD). Preschool <strong>children</strong>, adolescent<br />
girls, women <strong>of</strong> reproductive age group, elderly, those belong<strong>in</strong>g to socioeconomically<br />
backward groups such as scheduled caste and schedule tribe<br />
communities, communities resid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> chronically drought affected <strong>rural</strong> areas are<br />
nutritionally the most vulnerable segments <strong>of</strong> the populations.<br />
Several nutrition programmes have been designed and are be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
implemented <strong>in</strong> India, through respective State Governments, dur<strong>in</strong>g the past few<br />
decades for the prevention and control <strong>of</strong> both macro and micronutrient malnutrition<br />
<strong>in</strong> the population. They <strong>in</strong>clude supplementary feed<strong>in</strong>g through ICDS, distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
iron and folic acid tablets, massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A supplementation, Mid-day meal<br />
programme etc. Also, several poverty alleviation and developmental programmes<br />
are be<strong>in</strong>g implemented by central and State governments, for the overall<br />
socioeconomic development <strong>of</strong> the communities. In addition, Public Distribution<br />
System and TPDS are striv<strong>in</strong>g to provide essential commodities at affordable price,<br />
especially to those below poverty l<strong>in</strong>e throughout the <strong>year</strong>, all over the country, to<br />
ensure household food security.<br />
Children, who are subjected to socio-economic and dietary constra<strong>in</strong>ts dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
their critical <strong>year</strong>s <strong>of</strong> growth and development, end up as adults with small body size.<br />
Such adults may be apparently healthy, but there is evidence to suggest that their<br />
productivity and earn<strong>in</strong>g capacity are impaired (Satyanarayana and Naidu, 1977 7 ).<br />
Repeat surveys by National Nutrition Monitor<strong>in</strong>g Bureau (1999 8 ) <strong>in</strong> eight States<br />
revealed that, despite very little or no change <strong>in</strong> the dietary <strong>in</strong>takes <strong>of</strong> <strong>rural</strong> population<br />
over a period <strong>of</strong> time, there was a decrease <strong>in</strong> the prevalence <strong>of</strong> severe forms <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>under</strong>nutrition among young <strong>children</strong> with concomitant <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> normal grades.<br />
However, the proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> with mild to moderate <strong>under</strong>nutrition rema<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
similar. Recent survey carried out by NNMB (2006 9 ) <strong>in</strong> the <strong>rural</strong> areas <strong>of</strong> n<strong>in</strong>e States<br />
revealed that about 40% <strong>under</strong> 5 <strong>year</strong> <strong>children</strong> were <strong>under</strong>weight, 45% were stunted<br />
and 20% were wasted. The correspond<strong>in</strong>g figures for the State <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh<br />
were, 46%, 59% and 24% respectively.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to NFHS-3 10 , <strong>in</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh, 60% <strong>of</strong>
ecommended several action programmes <strong>in</strong> its National Plan <strong>of</strong> Action on Nutrition<br />
(1995) 12 . Though, the Government <strong>of</strong> India and the respective State Governments<br />
have been implement<strong>in</strong>g several health, nutrition <strong>in</strong>tervention and developmental<br />
programmes through its National Nutrition Policy and National Plan <strong>of</strong> Action on<br />
Nutrition for overall improvement <strong>of</strong> health and nutrition status <strong>of</strong> the community, the<br />
prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>nutrition cont<strong>in</strong>ues to be significantly high.<br />
The type and magnitude <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>nutrition may vary from district to district,<br />
depend<strong>in</strong>g on geographical and agro-climatic conditions and therefore, warrant<br />
region-specific <strong>in</strong>terventions. In order to devise and implement area specific<br />
<strong>in</strong>tervention strategies and to monitor their impact over a period, it is necessary to<br />
generate data base at district level.<br />
In this context, the Government <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh is contemplat<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
develop State Nutrition Policy and develop plan <strong>of</strong> action for implementation, <strong>in</strong> order<br />
to improve the nutritional status <strong>of</strong> the communities. Therefore, at the request <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Women & Child Development, Government <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh, the<br />
National Institute <strong>of</strong> Nutrition carried out survey <strong>in</strong> all the follow<strong>in</strong>g 50 districts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
State, to assess the nutritional status <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong> 5 <strong>year</strong> <strong>children</strong> and <strong>in</strong>fant and young child<br />
feed<strong>in</strong>g practices.<br />
Sl.<br />
Sl.<br />
Sl.<br />
Sl.<br />
Sl.<br />
District<br />
District<br />
District<br />
District<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
District<br />
1 Alirajpur 11 Ch<strong>in</strong>dwara 21 Indore 31 Neemuch 41 Shadol<br />
2 Anuppur 12 Damoh 22 Jabalpur 32 Panna 42 Shajapur<br />
3 Ashokngar 13 Datia 23 Jhabua 33 Raisen 43 Sheopur<br />
4 Balaghat 14 Dewas 24 Katni 34 Rajgarh 44 Sidhi<br />
5 Barwani 15 Dhar 25 Khandwa 35 Ratlam 45 S<strong>in</strong>grauli<br />
6 Betul 16 D<strong>in</strong>dori 26 Khargone 36 Rewa 46 Shivpuri<br />
7 Bh<strong>in</strong>d 17 Guna 27 Mandla 37 Sagar 47 Tikamgarh<br />
8 Bhopal 18 Gwalior 28 Mandsaur 38 Satna 48 Ujja<strong>in</strong><br />
9 Burhanpur 19 Harda 29 Morena 39 Sehore 49 Umaria<br />
10 Chhatarpur 20 Hoshangabad 30 Narsimhapur 40 Seoni 50 Vidisha<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> the study carried out <strong>in</strong> Shivpuri district <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh<br />
State dur<strong>in</strong>g February-August 2010, is presented <strong>in</strong> this report.<br />
1.1 Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> Shivpuri District<br />
The district is bounded on the Gwalior and Datia districts, on the<br />
East by Jhansi district <strong>of</strong> U.P, on the West by Sheopur and Kota district <strong>of</strong><br />
Rajasthan and on the South by Guna district. Shivpuri is ma<strong>in</strong>ly an<br />
agricultural district and so cultivation is the ma<strong>in</strong> occupation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
people. The dependence on cultivation can be viewed from the fact that<br />
83.38 percent <strong>of</strong> the total workers <strong>of</strong> district are engaged <strong>in</strong> agriculture<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
either as cultivators (70.40%) or as agriculture laborers (12.98%). Rice,<br />
Jowar, Bajra, Maize, Wheat and Barley are the ma<strong>in</strong> cereal crops. Gram & Tur<br />
(Arhar) are the ma<strong>in</strong> pulses grown <strong>in</strong> the district, Sugarcane, condiments and spices;<br />
sesamum (til) and l<strong>in</strong>seed are other crops <strong>of</strong> the district. The total area <strong>of</strong> District is<br />
10298 sq.Km. with a population <strong>of</strong> 14,41,950.(2001 census), with a population<br />
density <strong>of</strong> 140/sq.km. The district has a sex ratio <strong>of</strong> 858. The overall literacy rate is<br />
59.6% with 74.8% for males and 41.5% for females. The proportion <strong>of</strong> Scheduled<br />
Caste population was 18.8%, while that <strong>of</strong> Scheduled Tribe was 11.2%.<br />
2. OBJECTIVES<br />
2.1 General Objective<br />
The general objective <strong>of</strong> the study was to assess the health and nutritional status <strong>of</strong><br />
3.1.2 Selection <strong>of</strong> Villages<br />
For the purpose <strong>of</strong> survey, <strong>in</strong> each district, a total <strong>of</strong> 20 villages were selected,<br />
us<strong>in</strong>g systematic random procedure, cover<strong>in</strong>g all the taluks/blocks based on<br />
Population Proportion to Size <strong>of</strong> the village.<br />
3.1.3 Selection <strong>of</strong> Households<br />
In each <strong>of</strong> the selected villages, a total <strong>of</strong> 20 households (HHs) hav<strong>in</strong>g at<br />
least one <strong>in</strong>dex child <strong>of</strong>
3.2.4 History <strong>of</strong> Morbidity<br />
Information on history <strong>of</strong> morbidity among the <strong>children</strong> such as fever,<br />
respiratory <strong>in</strong>fection, diarrhoea etc., if any, dur<strong>in</strong>g the preced<strong>in</strong>g 15 days <strong>of</strong> visit was<br />
collected.<br />
3.2.5 Maternal Particulars<br />
Maternal particulars such as parity, antenatal care, TT immunization, receipt<br />
<strong>of</strong> IFA tablets, particulars <strong>of</strong> delivery and record<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> birth weight were collected on<br />
mothers <strong>of</strong>
and pre-tested before be<strong>in</strong>g used <strong>in</strong> the survey. Data was collected <strong>in</strong> each district<br />
by two teams.<br />
3.4 Quality Control<br />
Random checks were carried out by scientists from NIN, periodically by<br />
revisit<strong>in</strong>g the households surveyed by the field staff, to ensure quality <strong>of</strong> data<br />
collection.<br />
3.5 Data Analysis<br />
The data was scrut<strong>in</strong>ized and entered <strong>in</strong>to the computers as soon as it was<br />
received at NIN. The data clean<strong>in</strong>g was done by carry<strong>in</strong>g out range and consistency<br />
checks. Descriptive and analytical statistics <strong>of</strong> the data were carried out us<strong>in</strong>g SPSS<br />
W<strong>in</strong>dows version 15.0. Appropriate statistical tools were used wherever needed.<br />
4. RESULTS<br />
4.1 Coverage<br />
A total <strong>of</strong> 416 <strong>children</strong> (Boys: 228; Girls:188) <strong>of</strong>
4.2.3 Family size<br />
The average family size was 6.1. About 63% <strong>of</strong> HHs had 5-9 members, 26%<br />
<strong>of</strong> the HHs had family size <strong>of</strong> ≤ 4 members and 11% <strong>of</strong> HHs had ≥10 members.<br />
4.2.4 Literacy status <strong>of</strong> father<br />
About 62% <strong>of</strong> the fathers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>children</strong> were literates. About 28% had<br />
an education level <strong>of</strong> 8-10 th class, about 15% had school<strong>in</strong>g up to 5th class, about<br />
9% studied upto <strong>in</strong>termediate and 5 % studied graduation & above. While 4% had<br />
education level upto 6-7 th class.<br />
4.2.5 Literacy status <strong>of</strong> mother<br />
About 33% <strong>of</strong> the mothers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>children</strong> were literates. About 15%<br />
had an education up to 7 th class, 11% had an education up to <strong>in</strong>termediate, 3%<br />
each were educated up to up to 8-10 th class and graduate & above respectively.<br />
4.2.6 Household landhold<strong>in</strong>g<br />
About 38% <strong>of</strong> households did not posses any agricultural land, about 32%<br />
were small farmers (2.5 - 5 acres), 22 % were marg<strong>in</strong>al farmers (
4.3.2 Household amenities<br />
The major source <strong>of</strong> dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water was from tube well (83%), followed by<br />
open well (15%), while, only 2% <strong>of</strong> the households had access to tap water. Almost<br />
all the HHs (97%) were us<strong>in</strong>g firewood for cook<strong>in</strong>g purposes. About 23% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
houses were electrified. Only about 9% <strong>of</strong> the HHs were us<strong>in</strong>g sanitary latr<strong>in</strong>e. About<br />
28% <strong>of</strong> the HHs had provision <strong>of</strong> separate kitchen.<br />
4.4 Iod<strong>in</strong>e content <strong>of</strong> Cook<strong>in</strong>g salt<br />
The distribution <strong>of</strong> HHs accord<strong>in</strong>g to iod<strong>in</strong>e content <strong>of</strong> cook<strong>in</strong>g salt as estimated<br />
by spot test<strong>in</strong>g kit is presented <strong>in</strong> Table 4. It was observed that about 56% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
HHs was us<strong>in</strong>g powdered salt and about 21% <strong>of</strong> HHS were us<strong>in</strong>g rock salt and 12%<br />
<strong>of</strong> HHs were us<strong>in</strong>g free flow<strong>in</strong>g salt. Only 7% <strong>of</strong> HHs were us<strong>in</strong>g adequately iodized<br />
salt (≥15 ppm) and about 47% each <strong>of</strong> HH samples had either
About 76% <strong>of</strong> pregnant women received IFA tablets. While about 29% received<br />
≥90 tablets, only 12% consumed ≥ 90 tablets dur<strong>in</strong>g the pregnancy. The IFA tablets<br />
were received mostly from ANM (71.4%). Majority <strong>of</strong> the mothers (98%) reportedly<br />
received two doses <strong>of</strong> TT.<br />
4.5.3 Particulars <strong>of</strong> last Delivery (Mothers hav<strong>in</strong>g
%<br />
Fig.1 Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 0-11 months Children accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Time <strong>of</strong> Initiation <strong>of</strong> Breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g (BF)<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
43.4<br />
50<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
5.8<br />
0.8<br />
east milk. About 25% were solely breast fed up to six months. Of those who were<br />
currently receiv<strong>in</strong>g complementary foods (54%), the complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g was<br />
<strong>in</strong>itiated at
suffered from one or more morbidities dur<strong>in</strong>g the period, the proportion <strong>of</strong> which was<br />
maximum (28.8%) <strong>in</strong> the age group <strong>of</strong> 36-47 months <strong>children</strong>, followed by 24-35 &<br />
48-59 months (21% each) and 6-11 & 12-23 months age group <strong>children</strong> (16% each).<br />
The common morbidities reported were fever (15.9%), diarrhoea (5.5%), and acute<br />
respiratory <strong>in</strong>fections (3.6%). The prevalence <strong>of</strong> diarrhoea was maximum (8%) <strong>in</strong> the<br />
age group <strong>of</strong> 48-59 months <strong>children</strong>, followed by 6-11 months (7%), 0-5 months<br />
<strong>children</strong> (6.1%) and 12-23, 24-35 & 36-47 months age group <strong>children</strong> (about 4%<br />
each). Similarly, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> fever was maximum <strong>in</strong> 24-59 months <strong>children</strong><br />
(about 20%), while it was 6-14% <strong>in</strong> < 24 months age group <strong>children</strong>. The prevalence<br />
<strong>of</strong> acute respiratory <strong>in</strong>fections was reported maximum <strong>in</strong> the age group <strong>of</strong> 36-59<br />
months <strong>children</strong> (5-7%%) and it was 2-4% <strong>in</strong>
Fig. 3 Coverage (%) <strong>of</strong> 12-24 months Children for Immunization <strong>under</strong><br />
Universal Immunization Program (UIP)<br />
%<br />
100<br />
90<br />
97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5<br />
97.5 97.5<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
BCG DPT1 DPT2 DPT3 OPV1 OPV2 OPV3 Measles Full Imm. Do not<br />
know<br />
2.5<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
18-59 months <strong>children</strong> received 2 doses dur<strong>in</strong>g preced<strong>in</strong>g one <strong>year</strong> and 1% received<br />
one dose only. In a majority <strong>of</strong> cases, the massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A was adm<strong>in</strong>istered<br />
at AWC (94%), mostly by AWW (50%) or ANM (45%). The major reason for nonreceipt/partial<br />
receipt <strong>of</strong> massive dose <strong>of</strong> Vitam<strong>in</strong> A was that were ‘not <strong>of</strong>fered’<br />
(4.2%).<br />
4.6.9 Coverage for Iron and Folic acid tablets Supplementation<br />
About 35% <strong>children</strong> <strong>of</strong> 12-59 months reportedly received IFA tablets dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the preced<strong>in</strong>g <strong>year</strong> from AWW. Only about 8% received ≥ 90 IFA tablets. None <strong>of</strong><br />
them consumed ≥ 90 IFA tablets, while only 4% consumed between 60 and 90<br />
tablets (Table 20).<br />
4.7 <strong>Nutritional</strong> status <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> (
20<br />
16<br />
Fig.4 Distance charts for Weights - Boys<br />
Median Wt - WHO Standards<br />
Mean Wt - Current Study<br />
Wt (Kgs)<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12-17<br />
18-23<br />
24-29<br />
30-35<br />
36-41<br />
42-47<br />
48-53<br />
54-59<br />
Age (Months)<br />
20<br />
16<br />
Fig.5 Distance charts for Weights - Girls<br />
Median Wt - WHO Standards<br />
Mean Wt - Current Study<br />
Wt (Kgs)<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
0<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
Age (Months)<br />
12-17<br />
18-23<br />
24-29<br />
30-35<br />
36-41<br />
42-47<br />
48-53<br />
54-59<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
120<br />
100<br />
Fig.6 Distance charts for Heights - Boys<br />
Meadian Ht-WHO standards<br />
Mean Ht -Current Study<br />
80<br />
Ht (Cms)<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
Age (Months)<br />
12-17<br />
18-23<br />
24-29<br />
30-35<br />
36-41<br />
42-47<br />
48-53<br />
54-59<br />
120<br />
100<br />
Fig.7 Distance charts for Heights - Girls<br />
Meadian Ht-WHO standards<br />
Mean Ht -Current Study<br />
80<br />
Ht (Cms)<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
0<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
Age (Months)<br />
12-17<br />
18-23<br />
24-29<br />
30-35<br />
36-41<br />
42-47<br />
48-53<br />
54-59<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Fig.8 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among
The overall prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight among
was marg<strong>in</strong>ally higher among other castes (30%) as compared to ST&SC (27%) and<br />
BC communities (24%). However, these differences were not statistically significant<br />
(Fig. 10).<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> Family<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g was significantly ( p
Fig.10 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among
Fig.11 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among
from landless households compared to those possess<strong>in</strong>g land (Fig.13). None <strong>of</strong> the<br />
differences were found to be statistically significant.<br />
Occupation <strong>of</strong> father<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight among <strong>children</strong> with father’s occupation as<br />
‘labour’ was higher (61%) compared to either ‘cultivators’ ‘or ‘others (51% each). The<br />
prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g was marg<strong>in</strong>ally higher among those with ‘labour’ (65%) and<br />
‘other’ occupations (62%) compared to ‘cultivators’ (60%). The prevalence <strong>of</strong> wast<strong>in</strong>g<br />
was found to be higher among ‘labour’ (29%) as compared to ‘cultivators’ (24%), and<br />
‘others’ (23%), but the differences, however, were not statistically significant(Fig. 14).<br />
Occupation <strong>of</strong> mother<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight among <strong>children</strong> with mothers engaged <strong>in</strong><br />
labour (62%) was higher as compared to housewives/‘others’ (50%) or ‘cultivators’<br />
(58%). The prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g was marg<strong>in</strong>ally higher among <strong>children</strong> with<br />
mothers either engaged <strong>in</strong> ‘labour’ (66%) or ‘cultivators’ (63%) as compared to<br />
‘housewives’/‘others’ (59%). The prevalence <strong>of</strong> wast<strong>in</strong>g was found to be comparable<br />
between the occupational groups. However none <strong>of</strong> the differences were found to be<br />
statistically significant.<br />
Per Capita Income (Rs.)<br />
No association was found between the prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight, stunt<strong>in</strong>g<br />
and wast<strong>in</strong>g and per capita monthly <strong>in</strong>come. (Fig. 15).<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> house<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight and stunt<strong>in</strong>g was higher among <strong>children</strong> from<br />
families either liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> kutcha houses (58%) or semi-pucca houses (57%) compared<br />
to those liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> pucca house (43%). Similarly the prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g was higher<br />
among <strong>children</strong> from families either liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> kutcha houses (63%) or semi-pucca<br />
houses (64%) compared to those liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> pucca house (52%). While the prevalence<br />
<strong>of</strong> wast<strong>in</strong>g was higher among those liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> kutcha houses (30%) compared to those<br />
liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> semi-pucca houses (23%) and pucca houses (26%). However, none <strong>of</strong> the<br />
differences were found to be statistically significant. (Fig.16).<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water<br />
Though not statistically significant, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight and wast<strong>in</strong>g<br />
was lower among those <strong>children</strong> from households with tap/tube as source <strong>of</strong> dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g<br />
water (54% and 25% respectively) compared to those us<strong>in</strong>g ‘other’ sources (60%<br />
and 29% respectively). The prevalence <strong>of</strong> wast<strong>in</strong>g was comparable between the<br />
groups (62% Vs 61%).<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Fig.13 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among
Fig.15 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among
Type <strong>of</strong> cook<strong>in</strong>g fuel<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight and stunt<strong>in</strong>g, though not statistically<br />
significant, was marg<strong>in</strong>ally higher among <strong>children</strong> from HHs us<strong>in</strong>g firewood as<br />
cook<strong>in</strong>g fuel (55% & 62% respectively) compared to those us<strong>in</strong>g ‘other’ fuels (53%<br />
each). On the other hand, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> wast<strong>in</strong>g was comparable among<br />
<strong>children</strong> from HHs us<strong>in</strong>g ‘other’ fuels (27%) and HHs us<strong>in</strong>g firewood as cook<strong>in</strong>g fuel<br />
(26%).<br />
Electrification<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight and wast<strong>in</strong>g, though not statistically<br />
significant, was higher among <strong>children</strong> from HHs not hav<strong>in</strong>g electricity (56% and<br />
28% respectively) compared to those HHs hav<strong>in</strong>g electricity (53% and 20%<br />
respectively). On the other hand the prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g was higher among<br />
<strong>children</strong> from HHs hav<strong>in</strong>g electricity (69%) compared to those <strong>children</strong> from HHs do<br />
not have electricity (60%).<br />
Sanitary Latr<strong>in</strong>e<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight, stunt<strong>in</strong>g and wast<strong>in</strong>g was lower among<br />
<strong>children</strong> <strong>of</strong> those households us<strong>in</strong>g sanitary latr<strong>in</strong>es (49%, 57% and 24%<br />
respectively), compared to those not us<strong>in</strong>g or not hav<strong>in</strong>g sanitary latr<strong>in</strong>es (56%, 63%<br />
and 26% respectively). However, none <strong>of</strong> the differences were found to be<br />
statistically significant.<br />
Separate Kitchen<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight and wast<strong>in</strong>g, though not statistically<br />
significant, was marg<strong>in</strong>ally higher among <strong>children</strong> from HHs who did not have<br />
separate kitchen (56% and 26% respectively) compared to those hav<strong>in</strong>g separate<br />
kitchen (53% and 25% respectively). On the other hand, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g<br />
was higher among <strong>children</strong> from HHs who have separate kitchen (65%) compared to<br />
those who do not hav<strong>in</strong>g separate kitchen (61%).<br />
History <strong>of</strong> Morbidity dur<strong>in</strong>g preced<strong>in</strong>g fortnight<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> overall stunt<strong>in</strong>g was significantly (p
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS<br />
National population policy 2000 envisaged that 80% <strong>of</strong> deliveries should be<br />
Institutional and 100% should be conducted by tra<strong>in</strong>ed personnel 16 . The study<br />
revealed that about 88% <strong>of</strong> deliveries were <strong>in</strong>stitutional and 89% <strong>of</strong> deliveries were<br />
conducted by tra<strong>in</strong>ed personnel. About 59% <strong>of</strong> pregnant women had <strong>under</strong>gone<br />
antenatal check-up and 98% received TT immunization. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to NFHS-3<br />
survey, about 80% <strong>of</strong> the pregnant women had <strong>under</strong>gone ANC <strong>in</strong> the state <strong>of</strong><br />
Madhya Pradesh 10 .<br />
Birth weights were recorded on about 71% <strong>of</strong> the newborns and the records<br />
were available for all <strong>of</strong> them. The proportion <strong>of</strong> low birth weight (LBW) was about<br />
26% <strong>in</strong> the district. The birth weight <strong>of</strong> an <strong>in</strong>fant is the s<strong>in</strong>gle most important<br />
determ<strong>in</strong>ant <strong>of</strong> new born survival and <strong>in</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g countries. Low birth weight<br />
<strong>in</strong>fants are at <strong>in</strong>creased risk <strong>of</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g malnourished at one <strong>year</strong> <strong>of</strong> age, become<br />
victims <strong>of</strong> “<strong>in</strong>fection-malnutrition cycle” which leads to further physical stunt<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
impaired growth and development 17 . In addition, <strong>children</strong> born with <strong>in</strong>trauter<strong>in</strong>e<br />
growth retardation are at a higher risk <strong>of</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g overweight/obesity and<br />
associated chronic degenerative disorders dur<strong>in</strong>g adulthood 6 .<br />
Infant and young child feed<strong>in</strong>g practices have a significant impact on child<br />
health and survival. Appropriate feed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g early and exclusive breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g<br />
and optimal complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g practices such as appropriate time <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiation,<br />
right type and quantity <strong>of</strong> complementary foods and frequency <strong>of</strong> complementary<br />
feed<strong>in</strong>g is important for proper physical growth and mental development <strong>of</strong> the child.<br />
In its policy statements, the American Academy <strong>of</strong> Paediatrics (1997) 18 stated that<br />
the mother’s milk is uniquely superior for <strong>in</strong>fant feed<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Epidemiological research showed that mother’s milk and breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>fants provides advantages with regard to general health, growth and development,<br />
while, significantly decreas<strong>in</strong>g risk for a large number <strong>of</strong> acute and chronic diseases.<br />
In this study, breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g was the common practice among the mothers. About<br />
43% <strong>of</strong> the mothers reportedly <strong>in</strong>itiated breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> one hour after delivery<br />
which is higher than that reported by NFHS-3 (16%), while 50% <strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>in</strong>itiated<br />
between 1-3 hours. Pre-lacteals were given <strong>in</strong> about 3% <strong>of</strong> the newborns. This<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g is encourag<strong>in</strong>g as Pre-lacteal feeds might harm the immature gut <strong>of</strong> the child,<br />
especially if they are contam<strong>in</strong>ated and early <strong>in</strong>itiation <strong>of</strong> breast feed<strong>in</strong>g is the<br />
primary determ<strong>in</strong>ant <strong>of</strong> maternal milk production and secretion. Avoidance <strong>of</strong> other<br />
fluids or foods is essential to optimize breast milk <strong>in</strong>take by the newborn. Most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
other fluids or foods are less nutritious than breast milk and therefore, if<br />
displacement occurs, the <strong>in</strong>fant may be at a nutritional disadvantage even if<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
prepared hygienically 19 . In many communities, it is traditionally believed that<br />
colostrum is unhealthy and therefore is harmful to the baby. However <strong>in</strong> the present<br />
study, colostrum was given by all the mothers which is good for the child’s health<br />
and nutrition and such desirable practices should be encouraged <strong>in</strong> the community.<br />
Breast milk can contribute significantly as a source <strong>of</strong> energy, fat, high quality<br />
prote<strong>in</strong> and micronutrients, especially when the quality <strong>of</strong> available complementary<br />
food is low (Academy <strong>of</strong> Educational Development, 1999 19 ). WHO 20 and UNICEF<br />
(1993a 21 ) recommends that complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g should be <strong>in</strong>itiated immediately<br />
after 6 months <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>fant’s age and breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g should be cont<strong>in</strong>ued well <strong>in</strong>to<br />
the second <strong>year</strong> <strong>of</strong> life and for longer duration, if possible. In this study, the mothers<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>ued to breastfeed for a longer duration (up to 2 <strong>year</strong>s), however undesirable<br />
complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g practices appear to be significant <strong>in</strong> the district <strong>of</strong> Shivpuri <strong>in</strong><br />
terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiation and frequency <strong>of</strong> feed<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
The <strong>in</strong>itiation <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g was unduly delayed. About 54% <strong>of</strong><br />
the 6-11 months <strong>children</strong> were gett<strong>in</strong>g complementary feeds, while only 13% started<br />
receiv<strong>in</strong>g the same at the age <strong>of</strong> 6 months. The complementary foods be<strong>in</strong>g given<br />
mostly <strong>in</strong>cluded cow/buffalo milk and home made semi-solids. The frequency <strong>of</strong><br />
feed<strong>in</strong>g was at least 3 times <strong>in</strong> 45% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>fants. Effective immunization<br />
programme aga<strong>in</strong>st the common communicable diseases are required for the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> the susceptible populations particularly <strong>in</strong> the develop<strong>in</strong>g countries,<br />
where<strong>in</strong> the risk <strong>of</strong> disability or death from preventable <strong>in</strong>fectious diseases is a<br />
matter <strong>of</strong> concern. Therefore, coverage <strong>under</strong> universal immunization programme<br />
should be 100%. The coverage for complete immunization is about 98% <strong>in</strong> this<br />
district.<br />
The programme for prevention <strong>of</strong> bl<strong>in</strong>dness due to vitam<strong>in</strong> A deficiency<br />
envisages distribution <strong>of</strong> massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A to all the <strong>children</strong> aged between 9-<br />
59 months, every 6 months. It was observed that about 84% <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> between 9-<br />
17 months and about 99% <strong>children</strong> between 18-59 months received at least one<br />
dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A dur<strong>in</strong>g previous one <strong>year</strong>. About 98% <strong>of</strong> 18-59 months <strong>children</strong><br />
received the suggested two doses dur<strong>in</strong>g the preced<strong>in</strong>g one <strong>year</strong>. The coverage for<br />
iron-folic acid supplementation was low (35%), while only 8% received ≥ 90 tablets<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g, poor coverage. Low compliance (None <strong>of</strong> them consumed ≥ 90 tablets)<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicates weak education component. There is a need to strengthen the service<br />
delivery and monitor<strong>in</strong>g mechanisms for these programmes.<br />
The common morbidities such as ARI, fever and diarrhoea were reported by the<br />
mothers with the prevalence be<strong>in</strong>g higher <strong>in</strong> the age group <strong>of</strong> 36-59 as compared to<br />
the other age group. The probable reasons for this could be prevail<strong>in</strong>g suboptimal<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
<strong>in</strong>fant and young child feed<strong>in</strong>g practices coupled with non-receipt <strong>of</strong> appropriate<br />
health care management.<br />
Consumption <strong>of</strong> adequately (≥15 ppm) Iodised salt is very poor (7%) <strong>in</strong> the<br />
district compared to National figure (51%) and State <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh (36%)<br />
(NFHS-3).<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> status <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants and young <strong>children</strong> is not only a vital health issue,<br />
but it is also central to susta<strong>in</strong>able growth and development <strong>of</strong> the child 22 . In the<br />
present study, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight, stunt<strong>in</strong>g and wast<strong>in</strong>g was 55%, 62%<br />
and 26% respectively. It was observed that the nutritional status <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong><br />
deteriorated as age advances especially from six months onwards. Undernutrition <strong>in</strong><br />
all its three forms cont<strong>in</strong>ues to be a significant problem <strong>in</strong> the district <strong>of</strong> shivpuri, even<br />
though the current prevalence <strong>in</strong> the district is lower than that reported for the State<br />
<strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh by NFHS-3 (2006). Probably, factors such as, the energy and<br />
nutrient density <strong>of</strong> the complementary foods given, the frequency and variety <strong>of</strong><br />
foods <strong>of</strong>fered, hygiene aspects <strong>of</strong> food preparation, personal hygiene, the amount <strong>of</strong><br />
breast milk consumed at different stages <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g, the frequency <strong>of</strong><br />
breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>appropriate complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g and after illness may<br />
have an important contributory role for the observed high prevalence <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>under</strong>nutrition <strong>in</strong> the district.<br />
The study revealed that no significant association between nutritional status<br />
and different socio-economic variables except with type <strong>of</strong> family, family size, history<br />
<strong>of</strong> morbidity (stunt<strong>in</strong>g), which <strong>in</strong>dicate higher rates <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>nutrition among <strong>children</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> nuclear and extended nuclear families and family size between 5-9 members.<br />
Promotion <strong>of</strong> better <strong>in</strong>fant and young child feed<strong>in</strong>g and health care practices is<br />
needed for improv<strong>in</strong>g the health and nutritional status <strong>of</strong> young <strong>children</strong>.<br />
Last but not the least, there is a need to augment the programmes for <strong>in</strong>come<br />
generation to enhance household food and nutrition security.<br />
- o0o -<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
REFERENCES<br />
1. de Onis M, Blossner M, Borghi E, Frongillo EA, Morris R. Estimates <strong>of</strong> global<br />
prevalence <strong>of</strong> childhood <strong>under</strong>weight <strong>in</strong> 1990 and 2015. JAMA 2004;<br />
291:2600-6.<br />
2. Black,RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA etal. Meternal and child <strong>under</strong>nutrition: global<br />
and regional exposures and health consequencies. Lancet 2008; 371: 243-260<br />
3. Jones G, Steketee RW, Black RE etal. How many child deaths can we prevent<br />
this <strong>year</strong> Lancet 2003; 362: 65-71.<br />
4. Edmond KM, Zandoh C, Quigley MA etal. Delayed breast feed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>itiation<br />
<strong>in</strong>creases risk <strong>of</strong> neonatal mortality. Pediatrics 2006; 117: e380-e386.<br />
5. Victora CG, Adair L, Fall C, Hallal PC, Martorell R, Ritcher L and Sachdev HS.<br />
Maternal and child <strong>under</strong>nutrition: Consequences for adult health and human<br />
capital. The Lancet 2008; 371:340-57.<br />
6. Barker DJP, Osmond C, Forsen TJ, Kajantie E, Eriksson JG. Trajectories <strong>of</strong><br />
growth among <strong>children</strong>who have coronary Events as Adults. N Eng J Med<br />
2005; 353:1802-9<br />
7. Satyanarayana K., Naidu AN., Chatterjee B., Rao BSN. Body size and work<br />
output. Am. J. Cl<strong>in</strong>. Nutr. 1977; 30:322-325.<br />
8. National Nutrition Monitor<strong>in</strong>g Bureau: Report <strong>of</strong> Second Repeat Survey –<br />
Rural. NNMB Tech. Rep. No. 18, 1999.<br />
9. National Nutrition Monitor<strong>in</strong>g Bureau. Diet and nutritional status <strong>of</strong> <strong>rural</strong><br />
population. NNMB Tech. Rep. No.24, National Institute <strong>of</strong> Nutrition (ICMR),<br />
Hyderabad, 2006<br />
10. National Family Health Survey 2005-06.<br />
11. M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>of</strong> Human Resource Development, Government <strong>of</strong> India, National<br />
Nutrition Policy, New Delhi: Department <strong>of</strong> Women and Child Development,<br />
1993.National Plan <strong>of</strong> action<br />
12. M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>of</strong> Human Resource Development, Government <strong>of</strong> India, National Plan<br />
<strong>of</strong> Action on Nutrition, New Delhi: Food and Nutrition Board, Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Women and Child Development, 1995.<br />
13. Jelliffee D.B. <strong>Assessment</strong> <strong>of</strong> nutritional status <strong>of</strong> community. WHO Monograph<br />
series No.53, 1966.<br />
14. World Health Organization. Measur<strong>in</strong>g change <strong>in</strong> nutritional status, WHO,<br />
Geneva, 1983.<br />
15. WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. WHO Child Growth<br />
Standards based on length/height, weight and age. Acta Paediatr Suppl 2006;<br />
450:76-85.<br />
16. www.who<strong>in</strong>dia.org/EIP/policy/population...<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
17. Black RE, L<strong>in</strong>dsay HA, Bhutta ZA, Caulfield LE, Mercedes de Onis, Majid<br />
Ezzati, Col<strong>in</strong> Mathers, Juan Rivera. Meternal and child <strong>under</strong> nutrition: Global<br />
and regional exposures and health consequences. Maternal and child <strong>under</strong><br />
nutrition study group. The Lancet, 2008; 371:340-357.<br />
18. American Academy <strong>of</strong> Paediatrics. Breast-feed<strong>in</strong>g and the use <strong>of</strong> Human milk<br />
American Academy <strong>of</strong> Paediatrics, Work Group on Breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g. Pediatr<br />
1997; 100:1035-1039.<br />
19. Academy <strong>of</strong> educational development. Recommended feed<strong>in</strong>g and dietary<br />
practices to improve <strong>in</strong>fant and maternal nutrition. L<strong>in</strong>kages – Improv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
nutrition and reproductive health. 1999.<br />
20. The optimal duration <strong>of</strong> exclusive breast-feed<strong>in</strong>g. Report <strong>of</strong> an Expert<br />
Consultation, WHO, Geneva, 2001.<br />
21. UNICEF. Breast feed<strong>in</strong>g facts <strong>of</strong> life. UNICEF (1993a).<br />
22. Dewey KG, He<strong>in</strong>ig MJ, Nommsen LA, Lonnerdal B. Adequacy <strong>of</strong> energy <strong>in</strong>take<br />
among breast-fed <strong>in</strong>fants <strong>in</strong> the DARLING study: relationship to growth<br />
velocity, morbidity and activity levels. Davis Area Research on Lactation, Infant<br />
Nutrition and Growth. J Pediatr.1991; 119:538-47.<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
TABLES
Table - 1<br />
Particulars <strong>of</strong> Coverage<br />
Particulars<br />
Coverage (n)<br />
Socio-economic particulars (HHs) 395<br />
Under 5 <strong>year</strong> <strong>children</strong> for anthropometry<br />
416<br />
(Boys: 228; Girls:188)<br />
Children below 12 months 120<br />
Children 12-35 months 161<br />
Children 36-59 months 135<br />
Spot test<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> HHs salt for iod<strong>in</strong>e 395<br />
Infant & young child Feed<strong>in</strong>g Practices<br />
Mothers with
Table - 2<br />
Socio-economic Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> the Households <strong>of</strong> Index <strong>children</strong><br />
Community<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> Family<br />
Family Size<br />
Particulars<br />
Percent<br />
n 395<br />
Scheduled Tribe 28.1<br />
Scheduled Caste 13.7<br />
Backward Community 49.6<br />
Others 8.6<br />
Nuclear 50.9<br />
Extended Nuclear 21.5<br />
Jo<strong>in</strong>t 27.6<br />
1 -4 26.3<br />
5 – 9 62.8<br />
≥ 10 10.9<br />
Average Family Size 6.1<br />
Literacy status <strong>of</strong> Father<br />
Literacy status <strong>of</strong> Mother<br />
Illiterate 38.0<br />
Read & write 0.5<br />
1 – 5 Class 14.8<br />
6 – 7 Class 4.1<br />
8 – 10 Class 28.3<br />
Intermediate 9.4<br />
Graduate & above 4.6<br />
NA 0.3<br />
Illiterate 66.7<br />
1 – 5 Class 1.0<br />
6 – 7 Class 14.4<br />
8 – 10 Class 3.0<br />
Intermediate 11.1<br />
Graduate & above 2.8<br />
NA 1.0<br />
(Contd….)<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table – 2 (Contd…)<br />
Socio-economic Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> the Households <strong>of</strong> Index <strong>children</strong><br />
Particulars<br />
Extent <strong>of</strong> HH landhold<strong>in</strong>g (Acres)<br />
Major Occupation <strong>of</strong> Father<br />
Major Occupation <strong>of</strong> Mother<br />
Per capita monthly <strong>in</strong>come (Rs)<br />
Percent<br />
n 395<br />
Nil 38.0<br />
Marg<strong>in</strong>al farmers
Table - 3<br />
Physical facilities <strong>of</strong> the Households<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> house<br />
Particulars<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> Dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g Water<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> Cook<strong>in</strong>g Fuel<br />
Percent<br />
n 395<br />
Kutcha 29.6<br />
Semi Pucca 54.7<br />
Pucca 15.7<br />
Open Well 14.7<br />
Tube Well 83.0<br />
Tap 2.3<br />
Firewood 96.5<br />
Kerosene 0.5<br />
Bio-gas 1.5<br />
LPG 1.5<br />
Household electricity present 23.3<br />
Sanitary Latr<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Present and <strong>in</strong> use 8.9<br />
Present and not <strong>in</strong> use 3.8<br />
Absent 87.3<br />
Separate Kitchen Present 27.6<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table – 4<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> HHs accord<strong>in</strong>g to use <strong>of</strong> Iodized salt and iod<strong>in</strong>e content<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> salt used<br />
Iod<strong>in</strong>e content<br />
Particulars<br />
Percent<br />
n 395<br />
Crystal 12.2<br />
Powdered salt 55.7<br />
Rock Salt 20.5<br />
Free-flow<strong>in</strong>g 11.6<br />
0 ppm 45.6<br />
Table - 6<br />
Particulars <strong>of</strong> last pregnancy <strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>of</strong> < 6 months <strong>children</strong><br />
Particulars<br />
Percent<br />
n 49<br />
Undergone Antenatal check-up (ANC)<br />
Total number <strong>of</strong> ANCs<br />
Yes 59.2<br />
No 40.8<br />
One 6.1<br />
Two 42.9<br />
Three 6.1<br />
Four 4.1<br />
≥ <strong>five</strong> -<br />
Not availed ANC 40.8<br />
Undergone First ANC at (Weeks <strong>of</strong> gestation)<br />
Place <strong>of</strong> ANC<br />
ANC conducted by<br />
≤ 8 weeks -<br />
9- 12 weeks 12.2<br />
13- 16 weeks 26.6<br />
17-20 weeks 2.0<br />
>20 weeks 18.4<br />
Not availed ANC 40.8<br />
Home -<br />
AWC 4.1<br />
Sub-centre 6.1<br />
PHC/CHC 20.4<br />
Taluk/Dist.hospital 14.3<br />
Private Cl<strong>in</strong>ic 14.3<br />
Not availed ANC 40.8<br />
ANM/LHV 8.1<br />
Medical Officer 34.8<br />
Pvt. Doctor 16.3<br />
Not availed ANC 40.8<br />
( Contd..)<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table – 6 (Contd…)<br />
Particulars <strong>of</strong> last pregnancy <strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>of</strong> < 6 months <strong>children</strong><br />
Particulars<br />
Percent<br />
n 49<br />
Components <strong>of</strong> ANC*<br />
Physical Exam<strong>in</strong>ation 59.2<br />
Weight Record<strong>in</strong>g 55.1<br />
Ur<strong>in</strong>e Test 55.1<br />
Haemoglob<strong>in</strong> Estimation 55.1<br />
Blood pressure measurement 55.1<br />
Health & Nutrition advise given dur<strong>in</strong>g ANC<br />
Yes 55.1<br />
No 4.1<br />
Not availed ANC 40.8<br />
If yes, what advise*<br />
To attend for regular checkups 55.1<br />
To consume more GLVs 55.1<br />
To consume more Vegetables & fruits 55.1<br />
To take IFA tablets for 100 days 55.1<br />
Others 18.4<br />
Reasons for not avail<strong>in</strong>g ANCs*<br />
Not aware <strong>of</strong> the need 24.5<br />
Loss <strong>of</strong> wages -<br />
No ANC held <strong>in</strong> the village 8.2<br />
Tim<strong>in</strong>gs are <strong>in</strong>convenient 10.2<br />
Others -<br />
TT Immunization receiv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Yes 100.0<br />
If yes, No. <strong>of</strong> doses<br />
One dose 2.0<br />
Two doses 98.0<br />
Not received -<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table – 6 (Contd…)<br />
Particulars <strong>of</strong> last pregnancy <strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>of</strong> < 6 months <strong>children</strong><br />
Particulars<br />
Received IFA tablets<br />
IFA tablets received from<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> IFA tablets received<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> IFA tablets consumed<br />
Percent<br />
n 49<br />
Yes 75.5<br />
No 24.5<br />
ANM 4.1<br />
AWW 71.4<br />
Not received 24.5<br />
Table –7<br />
Particulars <strong>of</strong> last Delivery <strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>of</strong>
Table - 8<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> < 60 months <strong>children</strong> accord<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Birth order<br />
Birth order<br />
Percent<br />
n 416<br />
First 31.0<br />
Second 33.2<br />
Third 17.1<br />
Fourth 10.3<br />
Fifth and above 8.4<br />
Table - 9<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> < 60 months <strong>children</strong> hav<strong>in</strong>g sibl<strong>in</strong>gs accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>in</strong>terval<br />
between last two births<br />
Interval between last two births(months)<br />
Percent<br />
n 287<br />
Table - 10<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong>
Table - 11<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants ( 6 months NA 35.2<br />
Not yet started 98.0 46.5<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> complementary food currently be<strong>in</strong>g given*<br />
Cow/buffalo milk 2.0 52.1<br />
Formula milk 2.0 -<br />
Commercial baby foods - 1.4<br />
Home made semi solids - 23.9<br />
Home made solids - 49.3<br />
Not yet started 98.0 46.5<br />
* Multiple responses<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table - 12<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 6-11 months Children accord<strong>in</strong>g to Feed<strong>in</strong>g Practices<br />
Feed<strong>in</strong>g Practices<br />
Percent<br />
n 71<br />
Foods generally <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> home made complementary foods*<br />
Cereals & Millets 49.3<br />
Pulses 47.9<br />
Green Leafy Vegetables 38.0<br />
Other vegetables 35.2<br />
Roots & Tubers 40.8<br />
Fruits 38.0<br />
Milk & milk products 46.5<br />
Eggs 5.6<br />
Meat & Chicken 1.4<br />
Fats & Oils 45.1<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> complementary feeds per day<br />
Mode <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g<br />
2 8.5<br />
3 23.9<br />
4 21.1<br />
5 -<br />
Not yet started 46.5<br />
Mother with spoon 9.9<br />
Mother with hand 38.0<br />
Self with spoon 1.4<br />
Self by hand 4.2<br />
Feed<strong>in</strong>g bottle -<br />
Not yet started 46.5<br />
Supervision <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g by<br />
* Multiple responses<br />
Mother 53.5<br />
Grand parents/sibl<strong>in</strong>gs -<br />
Not yet started 46.5<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table - 13<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 12-35 months Children accord<strong>in</strong>g to Feed<strong>in</strong>g Practices<br />
Feed<strong>in</strong>g Practices<br />
Percent<br />
n 161<br />
Children solely breast fed -<br />
Children currently Breast fed + complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g 56.5<br />
Weaned 43.5<br />
Age <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiation complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g<br />
At 4 th month 4.3<br />
At 5 months 16.8<br />
At 6 months 5.6<br />
At 7 months 60.3<br />
At 8 months 13.0<br />
Not yet started -<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> food currently be<strong>in</strong>g given*<br />
Cow/buffalo milk 96.3<br />
Formula milk 1.2<br />
Home made semi-solids 50.3<br />
Home made solids 100.0<br />
Not yet started -<br />
Foods generally <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> home made foods*<br />
Cereals & Millets 100.0<br />
Pulses & legumes 100.0<br />
Green Leafy Vegetables 97.5<br />
Other Vegetables 97.5<br />
Roots & Tubers 98.1<br />
Fruits 86.3<br />
Milk & milk products 93.2<br />
Eggs 24.8<br />
Flesh foods 15.5<br />
Fats & Oils 97.5<br />
Not yet started CF -<br />
* Multiple responses ( Contd….)<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table – 13 (Contd…)<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 12-35 months Children<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Feed<strong>in</strong>g (CF) Practices<br />
Feed<strong>in</strong>g Practices<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> complementary feeds per day<br />
Mode <strong>of</strong> feed<strong>in</strong>g complementary food<br />
Supervision <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g by<br />
Percent<br />
n 161<br />
≤2 25.5<br />
3 46.5<br />
≥4 28.0<br />
Not yet started CF -<br />
Mother with spoon 0.6<br />
Mother with hand 28.6<br />
Self with spoon -<br />
Self by hand 70.8<br />
Not yet started CF -<br />
Mother 99.4<br />
Elder Sibl<strong>in</strong>gs -<br />
Grand parents 0.6<br />
Others -<br />
Not yet started CF -<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table – 14<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>of</strong> 0- 59 months Children accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Care <strong>of</strong> the child and personal Hygiene<br />
Particulars<br />
Care <strong>of</strong> the child when mother goes out for work<br />
Age group (months)<br />
Table – 15<br />
Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> the Morbidity among 0- 59 months <strong>children</strong> dur<strong>in</strong>g previous<br />
fortnight by age groups<br />
Age Group<br />
(months)<br />
n Fever Diarrhoea ARI<br />
At least one<br />
morbidity<br />
0-5 49 6.1 6.1 2.0 8.2<br />
6-11 71 9.9 7.0 4.2 16.9<br />
12-23 81 13.6 4.9 1.2 16.0<br />
24-35 80 20.0 3.8 2.5 21.3<br />
36-47 73 23.3 4.1 6.8 28.8<br />
48-59 62 19.4 8.1 4.8 21.0<br />
Pooled 416 15.9 5.5 3.6 19.2<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table – 16<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>of</strong> 0- 59 months Children accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Care <strong>of</strong> the child dur<strong>in</strong>g Sickness<br />
Particulars<br />
Personnel generally consulted dur<strong>in</strong>g illness <strong>of</strong> the child<br />
Morbidity dur<strong>in</strong>g previous fortnight<br />
Age group (months)<br />
Table - 17<br />
Participation (%) <strong>in</strong> ICDS supplementation programme<br />
(6- 59 months <strong>children</strong>)<br />
Particulars<br />
Age group (months)<br />
6-35 36-59 6-59<br />
n 232 135 367<br />
Participat<strong>in</strong>g 71.6 99.3 81.7<br />
Regular 30.2 74.1 46.3<br />
Irregular 41.4 25.2 35.4<br />
Not participat<strong>in</strong>g 28.4 0.7 18.3<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table -18<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 12- 24 months <strong>children</strong> accord<strong>in</strong>g to Coverage for<br />
Immunization <strong>under</strong> UIP<br />
Immunization Particulars<br />
Percent<br />
n 81<br />
Received all vacc<strong>in</strong>es ( Fully Immunized) 97.5<br />
Partially immunized -<br />
Do not know 2.5<br />
Not immunized -<br />
BCG 97.5<br />
DPT1 97.5<br />
DPT2 97.5<br />
DPT3 97.5<br />
OPV1 97.5<br />
OPV2 97.5<br />
OPV3 97.5<br />
Measles 97.5<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
Mother & child protection card 38.3<br />
Immunization card -<br />
AW record 25.9<br />
Parents 33.3<br />
Others -<br />
Do not know 2.5<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table - 19<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 9- 59 months Children Accord<strong>in</strong>g to receipt <strong>of</strong> massive<br />
dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A dur<strong>in</strong>g previous one <strong>year</strong><br />
Particulars<br />
Receipt <strong>of</strong> massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> doses <strong>of</strong> vitam<strong>in</strong> A<br />
Place <strong>of</strong> adm<strong>in</strong>istration<br />
Age group (months)<br />
9-17 18-35 36-59 9-59<br />
n 81 120 135 336<br />
Yes 84.0 100.0 97.8 95.2<br />
No 11.1 0.0 2.2 3.6<br />
Do not remember 4.9 0.0 0.0 1.2<br />
One 84.0 1.7 0.8 21.2<br />
Two NA 98.3 97.0 53.3<br />
Not received 11.1 0.0 2.2 3.6<br />
Do not remember 4.9 0.0 0.0 1.2<br />
Home 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.6<br />
AWC 84.0 98.3 97.0 94.3<br />
SC 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3<br />
PHC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
Others 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
Not received/do not remember 16.0 0.0 2.2 4.8<br />
Massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A adm<strong>in</strong>istered by<br />
AWW 39.5 50.8 55.6 50.0<br />
ANM 44.5 49.2 42.2 45.2<br />
others 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
Not received/do not remember 16.0 0.0 2.2 4.8<br />
Reasons for not receiv<strong>in</strong>g/<strong>in</strong>complete massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A<br />
Not <strong>of</strong>fered 9.9 1.7 3.0 4.2<br />
Mothers was busy 4.9 0.0 0.0 1.2<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table - 20<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 12-59 months Children accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to receipt <strong>of</strong> Iron & folic acid tablets<br />
Particulars<br />
Received IFA tablets<br />
IFA tablets received from<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> IFA tablets received<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> IFA tablets consumed<br />
Age group (months)<br />
12-35 36-59 12-59<br />
n 161 135 296<br />
Yes 28.6 42.2 34.8<br />
No 71.4 57.8 65.2<br />
ANM - - -<br />
AWW 28.6 42.2 34.8<br />
Private Doctor - - -<br />
Not received 71.4 57.8 65.2<br />
Table - 21<br />
Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> nutritional deficiency signs among 0 - 59 months <strong>children</strong><br />
Cl<strong>in</strong>ical signs<br />
Age groups (Months)<br />
0-11 12-35 36-59 0-59<br />
No <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> exam<strong>in</strong>ed 120 161 134 415<br />
NAD 100.0 99.4 94.1 97.8<br />
Dental caries - - 0.7 0.2<br />
NAD: No Abnormality Detected<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
Table -22<br />
Mean Height and weight <strong>of</strong> 0-59 months Children by age group and gender<br />
BOYS<br />
GIRLS<br />
n Height (cm) Weight (kg)<br />
Age<br />
(Months)<br />
n Height (cm) Weight (kg)<br />
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD<br />
0 - - - -
Table - 23<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 0-59 months Children accord<strong>in</strong>g to nutritional status by<br />
SD Classification: By Age group<br />
Age<br />
Group<br />
(months)<br />
n<br />
Severe<br />
(
Table -24<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 0- 59 months Children accord<strong>in</strong>g to nutritional status by SD<br />
Classification*: By Gender<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong><br />
Gender<br />
n<br />
Table -25<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 0- 59 months Children by <strong>Nutritional</strong> status accord<strong>in</strong>g to SD<br />
Classification: By Socio-demographic variables<br />
Weight for age Height for age Weight for height<br />
Particulars<br />
n<br />
Table -25 (Contd...)<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 0- 59 months Children by <strong>Nutritional</strong> status accord<strong>in</strong>g to SD<br />
Classification: By Socio-demographic variables<br />
Weight for age Height for age Weight for height<br />
Particulars<br />
n<br />
Table – 25 (Contd…)<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> 0- 59 months Children by <strong>Nutritional</strong> status accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
SD Classification: By Socio-demographic variables<br />
Particulars<br />
n<br />
Weight for age Height for age Weight for height<br />