01.02.2015 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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 />

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!