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: SEONI<br />
Morena<br />
Bh<strong>in</strong>d<br />
Sheopur<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 />
- Seoni 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> Seoni 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 Demographic and Socio-economic particulars 5<br />
3.2.2 Anthropometry 5<br />
3.2.3 Cl<strong>in</strong>ical exam<strong>in</strong>ation 6<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 Demographic and Socio-economic particulars 7<br />
4.2.1 Community 7<br />
4.2.2 Type <strong>of</strong> family 8<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. Sach<strong>in</strong> Parey<br />
2. Mr. Nimesh Kumar<br />
3. Mr. Sevakram Gore<br />
FIELD INVESTIGATOR<br />
Sl.No.<br />
Name<br />
1. Mr. Omprakash Nath<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong> < 5 <strong>year</strong> Children<br />
Seoni Dist. - Madhya Pradesh
RESULTS AT GLANCE
RESULTS AT A GLANCE<br />
DISTRICT PROFILE<br />
Total population (2001 Census) 11,66,608<br />
Sex Ratio 981<br />
Population density (per sq km) 133<br />
Percent <strong>of</strong> Schedule caste 10.0<br />
Percent <strong>of</strong> Schedule Tribes 37.0<br />
Literacy status (%) 65.9<br />
Female literacy (%) 54.1<br />
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS<br />
HHs surveyed (n) 399<br />
Average Family size (n) 5.5<br />
Average per capita monthly <strong>in</strong>come (Rs) 743<br />
COMMUNITY (%)<br />
Scheduled Caste 6.5<br />
Scheduled Tribe 58.7<br />
TYPE OF FAMILY (%)<br />
Nuclear 52.4<br />
Extended Nuclear 15.8<br />
Jo<strong>in</strong>t 31.8<br />
LITERACY STATUS (%)<br />
Father 73.9<br />
Mother 64.2<br />
LAND HOLDING (% HHs)<br />
Land less Families 34.4<br />
Marg<strong>in</strong>al Farmers 20.3<br />
Small Farmers 26.8<br />
Large Farmers 18.5<br />
(Contd… 2)<br />
.<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong> < 5 <strong>year</strong> Children<br />
Seoni Dt.- Madhya Pradesh
RESULTS AT A GLANCE (Contd…2)<br />
MAJOR OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD<br />
Percent<br />
Labourers 60.9<br />
Cultivators 32.8<br />
Land Lords 0.0<br />
Artisans 0.5<br />
Service 2.0<br />
Bus<strong>in</strong>ess 2.0<br />
TYPE OF HOUSE<br />
Kutcha 16.5<br />
Semi-Pucca 82.2<br />
Pucca 1.3<br />
SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER<br />
Open well 26.8<br />
Tube well 64.7<br />
Tap 8.0<br />
HOUSEHOLD ELECTRICITY 83.0<br />
PRESENT AND USING SANITARY LATRINE 5.0<br />
IODINE CONTENT OF COOKING SALT<br />
0 ppm 56.9<br />
DELIVERY CONDUCTED BY<br />
RESULTS AT A GLANCE (Contd…3)<br />
BREAST FEEDING AND COMPLEMENTARY FEEDING<br />
Percent<br />
M.O. PHC 50.0<br />
TB/ANM/LHV 24.4<br />
Pvt. Doctor 2.3<br />
Untra<strong>in</strong>ed Dai/Others 21.0<br />
Low birth weight (% <strong>in</strong>fants) 9.5<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 />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>nutrition (
ANC before 16 weeks <strong>of</strong> gestation. About 93% <strong>of</strong> pregnant women received IFA<br />
tablets dur<strong>in</strong>g pregnancy, 57% received ≥90 tablets and only 13% reportedly<br />
consumed ≥90 tablets. About 79% were <strong>in</strong>stitutional deliveries, either <strong>in</strong> government or<br />
private hospitals. Majority (50%) <strong>of</strong> deliveries were conducted by a medical doctor.<br />
Birth weight was recorded <strong>in</strong> 83% <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants, while relevant records were available for<br />
73%. The overall prevalence <strong>of</strong> low birth weight was about 10%.<br />
All the mothers (100%) fed colostrum to their newborns. About 10% <strong>of</strong><br />
mothers <strong>in</strong>itiated breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> 1hour and 70% did so with<strong>in</strong> 1-3 hours <strong>of</strong><br />
delivery. Pre-lacteal feeds such as cow/buffalo milk, goat milk and honey, etc. were<br />
given <strong>in</strong> about 6% <strong>of</strong> new borns.<br />
Only about 45% <strong>of</strong> 6-11 months <strong>children</strong> received complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g at 6<br />
months <strong>of</strong> age, while34% <strong>children</strong> received dur<strong>in</strong>g 7-12 months <strong>of</strong> age. About 14% <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>children</strong> did not start complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Of the 6-11 months <strong>in</strong>fants, about 85% each were receiv<strong>in</strong>g home made<br />
semisolids/solids and 75% receiv<strong>in</strong>g cow/buffalo milk, about 71% were receiv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
such foods at least 3 times a day. Among 12-35 months <strong>children</strong>, 67% received<br />
complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> addition to breast milk. Majority were receiv<strong>in</strong>g home<br />
made semisolids/solids and 95% were receiv<strong>in</strong>g complementary foods at least 3<br />
times a day.<br />
About 97% <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> were completely immunized dur<strong>in</strong>g 1 st <strong>year</strong>, while<br />
about 3% did not receive or partially immunized. About 94% <strong>of</strong> 9-59 months <strong>children</strong><br />
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>. About 61% <strong>of</strong> 18-<br />
35 months <strong>children</strong> and 73% <strong>of</strong> 36-59 months <strong>children</strong> received the stipulated two<br />
doses.<br />
About 1% <strong>of</strong> 12-59 months <strong>children</strong> received and consumed ≥90 IFA tablets.<br />
None <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>fants exhibited the cl<strong>in</strong>ical signs <strong>of</strong> nutritional deficiency, while<br />
1% <strong>of</strong> 36-59 months <strong>children</strong> exhibited the signs <strong>of</strong> Bitot spots.<br />
About 32% <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> reportedly had one or more morbidities such as fever,<br />
ARI and diarrhoea dur<strong>in</strong>g the preced<strong>in</strong>g fortnight. The prevalence was relatively<br />
higher among 6-23 months <strong>children</strong>, which tended to decrease with <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> age.<br />
About 53% <strong>of</strong> the mothers reported that they generally consult private practitioner,<br />
while 45% went to PHC, to seek treatment for their sick <strong>children</strong>.<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
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 Annppur 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 Sathna 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> Seoni district <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh State<br />
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> Seoni District<br />
The Seoni district is primarily a tribal dom<strong>in</strong>ated district. The name Seoni has<br />
the orig<strong>in</strong> from the word “SEONA” a tree, which was commonly found <strong>in</strong> this area.<br />
The wood <strong>of</strong> the tree is used <strong>in</strong> manufacture <strong>of</strong> DHOLAK. The district is situated on a<br />
narrow, north-south section <strong>of</strong> Satpura plateau <strong>in</strong> the south <strong>of</strong> Jabalpur. Seoni is rich<br />
<strong>in</strong> timber resources. The district covers a total area <strong>of</strong> 8758 sq. km. The total<br />
population <strong>of</strong> the district is 11,66,608 (2001 census), with a population density <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
133/sq.km. About 90% <strong>of</strong> the population was <strong>rural</strong> and 10% was urban. The<br />
proportion <strong>of</strong> Scheduled Tribe population was 37%. The district has a sex ratio <strong>of</strong><br />
981. The overall literacy rate is 65.9% with 77.5% for males and 54.1% for females.<br />
The primary occupation <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong> the population <strong>in</strong> the district is agriculture<br />
and allied activities. About 43.2% <strong>of</strong> the total land is <strong>under</strong> agriculture but only 11.9%<br />
<strong>of</strong> the land is double cropped and 11% <strong>of</strong> the land is <strong>under</strong> assured source <strong>of</strong><br />
irrigation. By and large the agricultural practice followed <strong>in</strong> the district is <strong>of</strong> traditional<br />
type and is <strong>of</strong> susta<strong>in</strong>able nature.<br />
2. OBJECTIVES<br />
2.1 General Objective<br />
The general objective <strong>of</strong> the study was to assess the health and nutritional<br />
status <strong>of</strong>
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>
3.2.3 Cl<strong>in</strong>ical exam<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
All the <strong>children</strong> covered for anthropometry were exam<strong>in</strong>ed cl<strong>in</strong>ically for the<br />
presence <strong>of</strong> signs <strong>of</strong> nutritional deficiency.<br />
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>
pr<strong>of</strong>iciency <strong>in</strong> local language were recruited, tra<strong>in</strong>ed and standardized <strong>in</strong> various<br />
survey methodologies, by the scientists from the National Institute <strong>of</strong> Nutrition. All<br />
the survey <strong>in</strong>struments (pr<strong>of</strong>ormae) were developed, translated <strong>in</strong>to H<strong>in</strong>di vernacular<br />
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> 399 households from 20 villages were covered for the study (Table<br />
1). A total <strong>of</strong> 508 <strong>children</strong> (Boys:264; Girls:244)
4.2.2 Type <strong>of</strong> family<br />
About 52% were nuclear families and 32% jo<strong>in</strong>t were while the rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 16%<br />
were extended nuclear families.<br />
4.2.3 Family size<br />
The average family size was 5.5. About 33% <strong>of</strong> the HHs had family size <strong>of</strong> ≤<br />
4 members, 63% <strong>of</strong> HHs had 5-9 and 4% <strong>of</strong> HHs had ≥10 members.<br />
4.2.4 Literacy status <strong>of</strong> father<br />
About 74% <strong>of</strong> the fathers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>children</strong> were literates. About 27% had<br />
an education level <strong>of</strong> 1-5 th class; about 37% had school<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> 6 th -10 th class, 10%<br />
studied up to <strong>in</strong>termediate and graduation or above.<br />
4.2.5 Literacy status <strong>of</strong> mother<br />
About 65% <strong>of</strong> the mothers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>children</strong> were literates. About 32% <strong>of</strong><br />
them had an education level <strong>of</strong> 1-5 th class, 27% were educated up to 6 th -10 th class,<br />
while very few (about 5%) had education level <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>termediate or above.<br />
4.2.6 Household landhold<strong>in</strong>g<br />
About 34% <strong>of</strong> households did not posses any agricultural land, about 19%<br />
were large farmers (≥ 5 acres) 27% were small farmers (2.5 - 5 acres), while 20%<br />
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 (65%), followed by<br />
open well (27%), while only 8% <strong>of</strong> the households had access to tap water. About<br />
99% <strong>of</strong> HHs were us<strong>in</strong>g firewood, 83% <strong>of</strong> the houses were electrified. About 5% <strong>of</strong><br />
the HHs were us<strong>in</strong>g sanitary latr<strong>in</strong>e. Only about one third <strong>of</strong> the HHs (33%) had<br />
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 54% <strong>of</strong> the HHs were<br />
us<strong>in</strong>g rock salt and 44% us<strong>in</strong>g free flow<strong>in</strong>g salt. About 43% <strong>of</strong> HHs were us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
adequately iodized (≥15 ppm) salt, while 57% <strong>of</strong> the HHs were us<strong>in</strong>g non-iodized<br />
salt.<br />
4.5 Maternal characteristics<br />
4.5.1 Age and parity <strong>of</strong> mother<br />
About 86% <strong>of</strong> mothers were between 20- 29 <strong>year</strong>s <strong>of</strong> age, while 13% were <strong>in</strong><br />
the age group <strong>of</strong> 30-39 <strong>year</strong>s. About 26% mothers were primi, 39% had 2 <strong>children</strong><br />
and 29% had 3-4 <strong>children</strong>, while 5% had ≥5 <strong>children</strong> (Table 5).<br />
4.5.2 Particulars <strong>of</strong> last Pregnancy (mothers hav<strong>in</strong>g
4.5.3 Particulars <strong>of</strong> last Delivery (Mothers hav<strong>in</strong>g
70<br />
60<br />
%<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 />
69.7<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
18.6<br />
10.5<br />
1.2 0<br />
The foods generally <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the complementary feeds were cereals &<br />
millets, pulses and fruits (86% each). About 71% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> received 3-5<br />
complementary feeds per day, while the rest (14%) received 2 feeds a day. About<br />
86% <strong>of</strong> mothers fed the <strong>in</strong>fants with their hand. . The feed<strong>in</strong>g was supervised mostly<br />
by the mother (84%) or grand parents (2%) (Table 12).<br />
4.6.2.2 12-35 month <strong>children</strong><br />
About 67% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> were currently receiv<strong>in</strong>g complementary foods <strong>in</strong> addition<br />
to breast milk, 33% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> were not breastfed. The type <strong>of</strong> food be<strong>in</strong>g currently<br />
given <strong>in</strong>cluded cow/buffalo milk (100%), home made semi-solids and/or solids<br />
(99.5%). The most commonly used food groups <strong>in</strong>cluded cereals & millets, pulses,<br />
GLV, other vegetables, roots & tubers, fruits , Milk & milk products and fats &<br />
oils(97-100%). About 45% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> were fed ≥ 4 times a day, 50% were fed 3<br />
times a day, while 5% were fed ≤ 2 times a day. About 56% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong><br />
consumed food themselves mostly with hands (55%) or with spoon (1%). About<br />
44% <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> were fed by their mothers, either by hand (43%) or with spoon (1%).<br />
In most cases, feed<strong>in</strong>g was supervised by their mothers (99.5%), followed by grand<br />
parents (0.5%) (Table 13).<br />
4.6.3 Care <strong>of</strong> the Child<br />
About 38% <strong>of</strong> mothers reportedly were tak<strong>in</strong>g care <strong>of</strong> their <strong>children</strong> by themselves at<br />
home; while 33% stated that they were carry the child to work spot. (Table 14). About<br />
23% looked after by grand parents.<br />
4.6.4 Personal Hygiene<br />
Less than 1% <strong>of</strong> mothers washed their hands with soap before feed<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
child. About 39% <strong>of</strong> mothers were us<strong>in</strong>g soap for wash<strong>in</strong>g their hands after<br />
defecation (Table 14).<br />
4.6.5 History <strong>of</strong> Morbidity<br />
The particulars <strong>of</strong> morbidity dur<strong>in</strong>g preced<strong>in</strong>g fortnight among
<strong>children</strong>. Similarly, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> fever was maximum <strong>in</strong> 6-11 months <strong>in</strong>fants (25%)<br />
and tended to decrease with <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g age to 14% <strong>in</strong> the age group <strong>of</strong> 36-47 months.<br />
A majority <strong>of</strong> the mothers <strong>in</strong> general stated that, they consult a private practitioner<br />
(54%), or visit the PHC (45%), when the <strong>children</strong> fall sick, (Table 16). About 8% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>children</strong> reportedly had diarrhoea dur<strong>in</strong>g the previous fortnight, while less than 1%<br />
received ORS, either home made (0.2%) or that given by ANM/AWW (0.6%) About 8%<br />
the <strong>children</strong> reportedly had acute respiratory <strong>in</strong>fection, less than 1% had received cotrimoxazole.<br />
4.6.6 Participation <strong>in</strong> ICDS Supplementary feed<strong>in</strong>g Programme.<br />
About 91% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> <strong>of</strong> 6-59 months age group were participat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the<br />
ICDS supplementary feed<strong>in</strong>g programme, with 63% be<strong>in</strong>g regular. The extent <strong>of</strong><br />
participation was observed to be high (98%) among 36-59 months and 85% among<br />
6-35 months age group (Table 17). A higher proportion <strong>of</strong> older <strong>children</strong> were regular<br />
(86%), than younger counterparts (46%).<br />
4.6.7 Coverage for Immunization <strong>under</strong> UIP<br />
The particulars <strong>of</strong> coverage <strong>of</strong> 12-24 months <strong>children</strong> for immunization <strong>under</strong><br />
Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) dur<strong>in</strong>g the first <strong>year</strong> <strong>of</strong> life are provided <strong>in</strong><br />
Table 18 and Fig. 3. About 96% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> were fully immunized, 1% were<br />
partially immunized, while about 3% did not receive any immunization. About 98%<br />
received polio, DPT & BCG vacc<strong>in</strong>es, while 97% received measles vacc<strong>in</strong>ation.<br />
Major source <strong>of</strong> this <strong>in</strong>formation was from mother and child protection card (37%),<br />
followed by parents (31%), anganwadi record (20%) and immunization card (10%). The<br />
major reason for not immunized or partially immunized was “mother was busy”.<br />
4.6.8 Coverage for Massive dose <strong>of</strong> Vitam<strong>in</strong> A Supplementation<br />
The National programme on Prevention and control <strong>of</strong> bl<strong>in</strong>dness due to Vitam<strong>in</strong><br />
A deficiency envisages that all the <strong>children</strong> between 9 to 60 months should receive<br />
biannual massive dose <strong>of</strong> vitam<strong>in</strong> A. The particulars <strong>of</strong> coverage <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> for<br />
massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A dur<strong>in</strong>g the previous one <strong>year</strong> are provided <strong>in</strong> Table 19. In<br />
general, about 94% <strong>of</strong> 9-59 months <strong>children</strong> reportedly received at least one dose <strong>of</strong><br />
vitam<strong>in</strong> A. While the coverage was 96% among 18-59 months <strong>children</strong>, only 85% <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>children</strong> <strong>of</strong> 9-17months received massive dose <strong>of</strong> vitam<strong>in</strong> A. About 61% <strong>of</strong> 18-35<br />
months <strong>children</strong> and 73% <strong>of</strong> 36-59 months <strong>children</strong> received 2 doses dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
preced<strong>in</strong>g one <strong>year</strong>. In a majority <strong>of</strong> cases, the massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A was<br />
adm<strong>in</strong>istered at AWC (93%), mostly by ANM (60%) or AWW (33%). The major<br />
reasons for non-receipt <strong>of</strong> massive dose <strong>of</strong> Vitam<strong>in</strong> A were ‘not <strong>of</strong>fered’ (27.9%).<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
%<br />
100<br />
Fig. 3 Coverage (%) <strong>of</strong> 12-24 months Children for Immunization <strong>under</strong><br />
Universal Immunization Program (UIP)<br />
90<br />
80<br />
97.5 97.5 97.5<br />
97.5<br />
97.5 97.5 97.5 96.6<br />
96.6<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0.9 2.5<br />
0<br />
BCG DPT1 DPT2 DPT3 OPV1 OPV2 OPV3 Measles Full Imm. Partial<br />
Imm.<br />
Not imm.<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
4.6.9 Coverage for Iron and Folic acid tablets Supplementation<br />
About 4% <strong>children</strong> <strong>of</strong> 12-59 months reportedly received IFA tablets dur<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
preced<strong>in</strong>g <strong>year</strong>, mostly from AWW. Only 0.2% received ≥ 90 IFA tablets and<br />
consumed the same (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 />
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 />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<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 />
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 />
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 />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<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
moderate stunt<strong>in</strong>g (- 3SD to - 2SD) was about 29%. The prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>creased with <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> age, from about 21% <strong>in</strong> the age group <strong>of</strong> 6-11 months,<br />
through 49% <strong>in</strong> 24-35 months and decreased to 38% <strong>in</strong> 48-59 months age group<br />
(Table 23, Fig.8). The prevalence was significantly (p
Fig.10 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among
Family size<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight was observed to be significantly (p
Fig.11 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among
Fig.13 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among
‘housewives’/‘other’ (37%). On the other hand, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> wast<strong>in</strong>g was found<br />
to be higher among ‘cultivators’ (41%), compared to ‘housewives’/‘others’ (31%) and<br />
‘labour’ (27%). However, none <strong>of</strong> the differences were found to be statistically<br />
significant.<br />
Per Capita Income (Rs.)<br />
No significant association was observed between <strong>under</strong>nutrition and PCI<br />
(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 the <strong>children</strong><br />
from families liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> pucca houses (88% and 50% respectively) as compared to<br />
either semi pucca (52% and 39% respectively) or kutcha houses (53% and 47%<br />
respectively). These differences were not statistically significant. The prevalence <strong>of</strong><br />
wast<strong>in</strong>g was significantly (p
Fig.15 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition ` among
Separate Kitchen<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g though not statistically significant was higher<br />
among <strong>children</strong> from HHs who did not have separate kitchen (42%) compared to<br />
those hav<strong>in</strong>g separate kitchen (36%). The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight and wast<strong>in</strong>g<br />
was comparable between the groups.<br />
History <strong>of</strong> Morbidity dur<strong>in</strong>g preced<strong>in</strong>g fortnight<br />
The prevalence <strong>of</strong> overall <strong>under</strong>weight and wast<strong>in</strong>g was marg<strong>in</strong>ally higher<br />
among <strong>children</strong> with history <strong>of</strong> morbidity (such as fever, diarrhoea, respiratory<br />
<strong>in</strong>fections etc) <strong>in</strong> the preced<strong>in</strong>g fortnight (55% and 35% respectively) compared to<br />
those <strong>children</strong> with no history <strong>of</strong> morbidity (52% and 27% respectively).<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS<br />
National population policy 2000 envisaged that about 80% <strong>of</strong> deliveries should<br />
be Institutional and 100% should be conducted by tra<strong>in</strong>ed personnel 16 . The study<br />
revealed that about 97% <strong>of</strong> pregnant women had <strong>under</strong>gone antenatal check-ups.<br />
However, only 53% had <strong>under</strong>gone the m<strong>in</strong>imum 3 ANCs. Cent per cent <strong>of</strong> women<br />
received TT immunization <strong>in</strong> the Seoni district <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
NFHS-3 survey, about 80% <strong>of</strong> the pregnant women had <strong>under</strong>gone ANC <strong>in</strong> the state<br />
<strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh 10 . About 79% deliveries took place either <strong>in</strong> Government or<br />
Private hospitals and about 76% were conducted by medical doctors. This f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g is<br />
encourag<strong>in</strong>g, as majority <strong>of</strong> the deliveries were conducted by tra<strong>in</strong>ed medical<br />
personnel.<br />
Birth weights were recorded <strong>in</strong> about 83% <strong>of</strong> the newborns, but the records<br />
were available for 73% <strong>of</strong> them. The proportion <strong>of</strong> low birth weight (LBW) was about<br />
10% <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 right time <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiation, right<br />
type and quantity <strong>of</strong> complementary foods and frequency <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g<br />
is important for proper physical growth and mental development <strong>of</strong> the child. In its<br />
policy statements, the American Academy <strong>of</strong> Paediatrics (1997) 18 stated that the<br />
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 />
10% <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 lower than that reported by NFHS-3 (16%), while 70% <strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>in</strong>itiated<br />
between 1-3 hours. This figure is higher than that reported by the NFHS-3 for the<br />
State (58%). Pre-lacteals were given <strong>in</strong> about 6% <strong>of</strong> the newborns. Pre-lacteal feeds<br />
might harm the immature gut <strong>of</strong> the child, especially if they are contam<strong>in</strong>ated. These<br />
undesirable newborn feed<strong>in</strong>g practices observed <strong>in</strong> the district is a matter <strong>of</strong> concern<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
and requires due attention because, early <strong>in</strong>itiation <strong>of</strong> breast feed<strong>in</strong>g is the primary<br />
determ<strong>in</strong>ant <strong>of</strong> maternal milk production and secretion. Avoidance <strong>of</strong> other fluids or<br />
foods is essential to optimize breast milk <strong>in</strong>take by the newborn. Most <strong>of</strong> the other<br />
fluids or foods are less nutritious than breast milk and therefore, if displacement<br />
occurs, the <strong>in</strong>fant may be at a nutritional disadvantage even if prepared<br />
hygienically 19 . In many communities, it is traditionally believed that colostrum is<br />
unhealthy and therefore is harmful to the baby. However <strong>in</strong> the present study,<br />
colostrum was given by cent percent <strong>of</strong> the mothers which is good for the child’s<br />
health and nutrition and such desirable practices should be encouraged <strong>in</strong> the<br />
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> Seoni <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 86% <strong>of</strong><br />
the 6-11 months <strong>children</strong> were gett<strong>in</strong>g complementary feeds, while only 45% 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> 71% <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%. It has been observed <strong>in</strong> this study that 97% were fully immunized.<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<br />
9-59 months, every 6 months. It was observed that about 85% <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> between<br />
9-17 months and 96% <strong>children</strong> between 18-59 months received at least one dose<br />
vitam<strong>in</strong> A dur<strong>in</strong>g previous one <strong>year</strong>. Only about 61% <strong>of</strong> 18-35 months <strong>children</strong> and<br />
73% <strong>of</strong> 36-59 months <strong>children</strong> received the suggested two doses dur<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
preced<strong>in</strong>g one <strong>year</strong>. The coverage for iron-folic acid supplementation was very low<br />
(4%), while only 0.2% received ≥ 90 tablets <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g, poor coverage. There is a<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
need to strengthen the service delivery and monitor<strong>in</strong>g mechanisms for these<br />
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 younger age group (6-23 months)<br />
compared to the older age group (24-59 months). The probable reasons for this<br />
could be due to the prevail<strong>in</strong>g suboptimal <strong>in</strong>fant and young child feed<strong>in</strong>g practices<br />
coupled with non-receipt <strong>of</strong> appropriate health care management.<br />
Consumption <strong>of</strong> adequately iodized salt (>15 ppm) is lower <strong>in</strong> the district (43%)<br />
compared to figures reported for National (51%) but was higher compared to State<br />
(36%) (NFHS-3). <strong>Nutritional</strong> status <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants and young <strong>children</strong> is not only a vital<br />
health issue, but it is also central to susta<strong>in</strong>able growth and development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
child 22 .In the present study, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight, stunt<strong>in</strong>g and wast<strong>in</strong>g was<br />
53%, 40% and 30% respectively. It was observed that the nutritional status <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>children</strong> deteriorated as age advances especially from six months onwards.<br />
Undernutrition <strong>in</strong> all its three forms cont<strong>in</strong>ues to be a significant problem <strong>in</strong> the<br />
district <strong>of</strong> Seoni, Probably, factors such as, the energy and nutrient density <strong>of</strong> the<br />
complementary foods given, the frequency and variety <strong>of</strong> foods <strong>of</strong>fered, hygiene<br />
aspects <strong>of</strong> food preparation, personal hygiene, the amount <strong>of</strong> breast milk consumed<br />
at different stages <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g, the frequency <strong>of</strong> breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
<strong>in</strong>appropriate complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g and after illness may have an important<br />
contributory role for the observed high prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>nutrition <strong>in</strong> the district.<br />
The study revealed significant association between nutritional status and<br />
different socio-economic variables, which <strong>in</strong>dicate higher rates <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>nutrition <strong>in</strong><br />
the households <strong>of</strong> vulnerable sections <strong>of</strong> society (SC & ST), among <strong>children</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
illiterate fathers, family size and type <strong>of</strong> house. Promotion <strong>of</strong> better <strong>in</strong>fant and young<br />
child feed<strong>in</strong>g and health care practices is needed for improv<strong>in</strong>g the health and<br />
nutritional status <strong>of</strong> young <strong>children</strong>. Last but not least there is a need to strengthen<br />
the programmes for <strong>in</strong>come generation to enhance the household food and nutrition<br />
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) 399<br />
Under 5 <strong>year</strong> <strong>children</strong> for anthropometry<br />
508<br />
(Boys:264, Girls:244)<br />
Children below 12 months 86<br />
Children 12-35 months 215<br />
Children 36-59 months 207<br />
Spot test<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> HHs salt for iod<strong>in</strong>e 399<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 />
<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 />
Percent<br />
n 399<br />
Extent <strong>of</strong> HH landhold<strong>in</strong>g (Acres)<br />
Nil 34.4<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 399<br />
Kutcha 16.5<br />
Semi Pucca 82.2<br />
Pucca 1.3<br />
Open Well 26.8<br />
Tube Well 64.7<br />
Tap 8.0<br />
Stream or River 0.5<br />
Firewood 99.2<br />
Kerosene 0.5<br />
Bio- Gas -<br />
LPG 0.3<br />
Household electricity present 83.0<br />
Sanitary Latr<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Present and <strong>in</strong> use 5.0<br />
Present and not <strong>in</strong> use 2.3<br />
Absent 92.7<br />
Separate Kitchen Present 32.8<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 399<br />
Powdered salt 0.3<br />
Crystal salt 1.0<br />
Rock salt 54.3<br />
Free-flow<strong>in</strong>g 44.4<br />
0 ppm 56.9<br />
Table - 6<br />
Particulars <strong>of</strong> last pregnancy <strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>of</strong> < 6 months <strong>children</strong><br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong> 24 weeks 13.3<br />
Not availed ANC 3.3<br />
Place <strong>of</strong> ANC<br />
Home 3.3<br />
AWC 40.1<br />
Sub-centre -<br />
PHC/CHC 20.0<br />
Taluk/Dist.hospital 10.0<br />
Private Cl<strong>in</strong>ic 23.3<br />
Not availed ANC 3.3<br />
ANC conducted by<br />
ANM 43.3<br />
Medical Officer 26.7<br />
Pvt. Doctor 26.7<br />
Not availed ANC 3.3<br />
( Contd..)<br />
Seoni Dist.- Madhya Pradesh
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 30<br />
Components <strong>of</strong> ANC*<br />
Physical Exam<strong>in</strong>ation 96.7<br />
Weight Record<strong>in</strong>g 93.3<br />
Ur<strong>in</strong>e Test 66.7<br />
Haemoglob<strong>in</strong> Estimation 60.0<br />
Blood pressure measurement 60.0<br />
Health & Nutrition advise given dur<strong>in</strong>g ANC<br />
Yes 86.7<br />
No 10.0<br />
Not availed ANC 3.3<br />
If yes, what advise*<br />
To attend for regular checkups 86.7<br />
To consume more GLVs 86.7<br />
To consume more Vegetables & fruits 86.7<br />
To take IFA tablets for 100 days 86.7<br />
Others 46.7<br />
Reasons for not avail<strong>in</strong>g ANCs*<br />
Not aware <strong>of</strong> the need 3.3<br />
No faith -<br />
No ANC held <strong>in</strong> the village -<br />
TT Immunization receiv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Yes 100.0<br />
No -<br />
If yes, No. <strong>of</strong> doses<br />
One dose 6.7<br />
Two doses 93.3<br />
Not received -<br />
Reasons for not receiv<strong>in</strong>g TT<br />
Not aware <strong>of</strong> the need NA<br />
* Multiple responses ( 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 />
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 30<br />
Yes 93.3<br />
No 6.7<br />
ANM 23.3<br />
AWW 53.3<br />
MO-PHC 6.7<br />
Private Doctor 10.0<br />
Not received 6.7<br />
30-60 3.3<br />
60-90 33.3<br />
≥90 56.7<br />
Not received 6.7<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 508<br />
First 33.3<br />
Second 36.0<br />
Third 17.5<br />
Fourth 7.7<br />
Fifth and above 5.5<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<br />
<strong>in</strong>terval between last two births<br />
Interval between last two births(months)<br />
Percent<br />
n 399<br />
Table - 10<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong>
Table - 11<br />
Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants ( 6 months - 33.9<br />
Not yet started 100.0 14.3<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> complementary food currently be<strong>in</strong>g given*<br />
* Multiple responses<br />
Cow/buffalo milk - 75.0<br />
Formula milk - 5.4<br />
Commercial baby foods - 14.3<br />
Home made Semi-solids - 83.9<br />
Home made solids - 85.7<br />
Not yet started 100.0 14.3<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 56<br />
Foods generally <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> home made complementary foods*<br />
Cereals & Millets 85.7<br />
Pulses 85.7<br />
Green Leafy Vegetables 83.9<br />
Roots & Tubers 82.1<br />
Fruits 85.7<br />
Milk & milk products 76.8<br />
Eggs 28.6<br />
Meat & Chicken 10.7<br />
Fats & Oils 78.6<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> complementary feeds per day<br />
2 14.3<br />
3 44.6<br />
4 26.8<br />
5 -<br />
Not yet started 14.3<br />
Mode <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Mother with spoon -<br />
Mother with hand 85.7<br />
Self with spoon -<br />
Self by hand -<br />
Feed<strong>in</strong>g bottle -<br />
Not yet started 14.3<br />
Supervision <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g by<br />
Mother 83.9<br />
Grand parents 1.8<br />
Not yet started 14.3<br />
* Multiple responses<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 215<br />
Children solely breast fed -<br />
Children currently Breast fed + complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g 66.5<br />
Weaned 33.5<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> food currently be<strong>in</strong>g given*<br />
Cow/buffalo milk 100.0<br />
Formula milk 0.9<br />
Commercial baby food 0.5<br />
Home made semi-solids 99.5<br />
Home made solids 99.5<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 100.0<br />
Other Vegetables 99.5<br />
Roots & Tubers 99.1<br />
Fruits 99.5<br />
Milk & milk products 99.5<br />
Eggs 61.9<br />
Flesh foods 48.8<br />
Fats & Oils 96.7<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 215<br />
≤2 4.7<br />
3 50.2<br />
≥4 45.1<br />
Not yet started CF -<br />
Mother with spoon 0.5<br />
Mother with hand 43.3<br />
Self with spoon 0.9<br />
Self by hand 55.3<br />
Not yet started CF -<br />
Mother 99.5<br />
Father -<br />
Elder Sibl<strong>in</strong>g -<br />
Grand parents 0.5<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<br />
previous fortnight by age groups<br />
Age Group<br />
(months)<br />
n Fever Diarrhoea ARI<br />
At least one<br />
morbidity<br />
0-5 30 10.0 3.3 3.3 16.7<br />
6-11 56 25.0 12.5 5.4 35.7<br />
12-23 119 26.1 9.2 7.6 39.5<br />
24-35 96 22.9 4.2 8.3 30.2<br />
36-47 120 14.2 5.8 10.8 27.5<br />
48-59 87 20.7 9.2 8.0 32.2<br />
Pooled 508 20.7 7.5 8.1 31.9<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 271 207 478<br />
Participat<strong>in</strong>g 85.2 97.6 90.6<br />
Regular 45.7 86.0 63.2<br />
Irregular 39.5 11.6 27.4<br />
Not participat<strong>in</strong>g 14.8 2.4 9.4<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 119<br />
Received all vacc<strong>in</strong>es ( Fully Immunized) 96.6<br />
Partially immunized 0.9<br />
Not immunized 2.5<br />
Reasons for no / <strong>in</strong>complete immunization<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation<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 96.6<br />
Unaware <strong>of</strong> need -<br />
Mother was busy 0.9<br />
Not <strong>of</strong>fered 2.5<br />
Fully immunized 96.6<br />
Mother & child protection card 36.9<br />
Immunization card 10.1<br />
AW record 20.2<br />
Parents 31.1<br />
Others 1.7<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 />
Age group (months)<br />
Particulars<br />
9-17 18-35 36-59 9-59<br />
Receipt <strong>of</strong> massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A<br />
No. doses vitam<strong>in</strong> A<br />
Place <strong>of</strong> adm<strong>in</strong>istration<br />
n 82 174 207 463<br />
Yes 85.4 96.6 95.7 94.2<br />
No 9.8 3.4 4.3 4.9<br />
Do not remember 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.9<br />
One 85.4 35.6 22.7 38.6<br />
Two 0.0 61.0 73.0 55.6<br />
Not received 9.8 3.4 4.3 4.9<br />
Do not remember 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.9<br />
Home 2.5 0.6 0.0 0.7<br />
AWC 82.9 96.0 95.2 93.3<br />
Sub centre 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2<br />
PHC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
Not received/do not remember 14.7 3.4 4.3 5.8<br />
Massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A adm<strong>in</strong>istered by<br />
AWW 31.7 36.2 31.9 33.5<br />
ANM 53.6 59.8 63.8 60.5<br />
Others 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2<br />
Not received/do not remember 14.7 3.4 4.3 5.8<br />
Reasons for not receiv<strong>in</strong>g/<strong>in</strong>complete massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A<br />
Unaware <strong>of</strong> need 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
Not <strong>of</strong>fered 9.8 37.9 26.6 27.9<br />
Time/place not convenient 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
Mother was busy 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.6<br />
Child below 18 months 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
Do Not remember 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0<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 />
No. <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 215 207 422<br />
Yes 1.9 5.3 3.6<br />
No 98.1 94.7 96.4<br />
ANM - 0.5 0.2<br />
AWW 1.9 4.8 3.3<br />
MO-PHC - - -<br />
Not received 98.1 94.7 96.5<br />
Table - 21<br />
Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> nutritional deficiency signs among 0 - 59 months<br />
<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 86 215 207 508<br />
NAD 100.0 99.5 97.1 98.6<br />
Emaciation - - - -<br />
Marasmus - - - -<br />
Bitot spots - - 1.0 0.4<br />
Dental caries - 0.5 - 0.2<br />
NAD: No Abnormality Detected<br />
<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>
n<br />
Table -22<br />
Mean Height and weight <strong>of</strong> 0-59 months Children by age group and gender<br />
BOYS<br />
GIRLS<br />
Age<br />
Height (cm) Weight (kg) n Height (cm) Weight (kg)<br />
(Months)<br />
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD<br />
3 47.5 3.98 3.0 0.76
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 />
Underweight (Weight for Age)<br />
Age<br />
Group<br />
(months)<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<br />
SD 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<br />
SD Classification: By Socio-demographic variables<br />
Particulars<br />
n<br />
Weight for age Height for age Weight for height<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 />
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 />
Weight for age Height for age Weight for height<br />
Particulars n