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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<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: UJJAIN<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 />

- Ujja<strong>in</strong> 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 – 4<br />

1.1 Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> Ujja<strong>in</strong> District 4<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 socioeconomic 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 – 19<br />

4.1 Coverage 7<br />

4.2 Household Socio-economic and Demographic particulars 7<br />

4.2.1 Community 8<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 9<br />

4.3 Household Physical facilities 9<br />

4.3.1 Type <strong>of</strong> house 9<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. Ms. Monali Dhote<br />

2. Mr. Abhishek Panchbudhe<br />

3. Mr. Ritesh Mangroliya<br />

FIELD INVESTIGATORS<br />

Sl.No.<br />

Name<br />

1. Mr. Naval Kishore Harode<br />

2. Mr.Santosh Kumar Choudhary<br />

<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>


RESULT AT GLANCE


RESULTS AT A GLANCE<br />

DISTRICT PROFILE<br />

Total population (2001 Census) 17,09,885<br />

Sex Ratio 940<br />

Population density (per sq km) 281<br />

Percent <strong>of</strong> Schedule caste 24.7<br />

Percent <strong>of</strong> Schedule Tribes 3.1<br />

Literacy status (%) 71.2<br />

Female literacy (%) 57.9<br />

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS<br />

HHs surveyed (n) 396<br />

Average Family size (n) 6.9<br />

Average per capita monthly <strong>in</strong>come (Rs) 586<br />

COMMUNITY (%)<br />

Scheduled Caste 30.6<br />

Scheduled Tribe 2.5<br />

TYPE OF FAMILY (%)<br />

Nuclear 40.4<br />

Extended Nuclear 14.6<br />

Jo<strong>in</strong>t 45.0<br />

LITERACY STATUS (%)<br />

Father 68.9<br />

Mother 44.9<br />

LAND HOLDING (% HHs)<br />

Land less Families 46.7<br />

Marg<strong>in</strong>al Farmers 12.6<br />

Small Farmers 16.7<br />

Large Farmers 24.0<br />

.<br />

(Contd… 2)<br />

<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong> < 5 yr Children Ujja<strong>in</strong> Dt.- Madhya Pradesh


RESULTS AT A GLANCE (Contd…2)<br />

MAJOR OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD Percent<br />

Labourers 49.5<br />

Cultivators 40.2<br />

Land Lords -<br />

Artisans 1.0<br />

Service 4.3<br />

Bus<strong>in</strong>ess 3.3<br />

TYPE OF HOUSE<br />

Kutcha 33.8<br />

Semi-Pucca 56.4<br />

Pucca 9.8<br />

SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER<br />

Open well 7.6<br />

Tube well 86.4<br />

Tap 5.8<br />

HOUSEHOLD ELECTRICITY 94.4<br />

PRESENT AND USING SANITARY LATRINE 19.9<br />

IODINE CONTENT OF COOKING SALT<br />

0 ppm 3.0<br />


Delivery conducted by<br />

RESULTS AT A GLANCE (Contd…3)<br />

PARTICULARS<br />

BREAST FEEDING AND COMPLEMENTARY FEEDING<br />

Initiate <strong>of</strong> Breast feed<strong>in</strong>g & Other practices<br />

Children solely breast fed<br />

Age <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiation <strong>of</strong> complementary Feed<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Immunization ( 12-24 months <strong>children</strong>)<br />

Percent<br />

M.O. PHC 58.2<br />

ANM/LHV 12.7<br />

Pvt. Doctor 10.9<br />

Untra<strong>in</strong>ed Dai/Others 18.2<br />

Low birth weight (% <strong>in</strong>fants) 40.0<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 93% <strong>of</strong> pregnant women had <strong>under</strong>gone Antenatal check-up (ANC) <strong>of</strong><br />

whom about 55% had ≥3 ANCs. Only 62% <strong>of</strong> pregnant women were registered for<br />

ANC before 16 weeks <strong>of</strong> gestation. Majority (92.9%) <strong>of</strong> pregnant women received IFA<br />

tablets dur<strong>in</strong>g pregnancy, 50% received ≥ 90 tablets and about 33% reportedly<br />

consumed ≥90 tablets. About 82% deliveries were <strong>in</strong>stitutional, either <strong>in</strong> government or<br />

private hospitals. Majority (69%) <strong>of</strong> deliveries were conducted by a medical doctor.<br />

Birth weights were reportedly recorded for 80% <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants and records were available<br />

for 64% <strong>in</strong>fants. The overall prevalence <strong>of</strong> low birth weight was 40%.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the mothers (85.5%) fed colostrum to their newborns. About 9% <strong>of</strong><br />

mothers <strong>in</strong>itiated breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> 1 hour, 59% did so with<strong>in</strong> 1-3 hours and 14%<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, cow/buffalo milk and honey were given to 21% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<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 9%, while 22% <strong>children</strong> received the same dur<strong>in</strong>g 7-8<br />

months <strong>of</strong> age. About 65% <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> did not yet start complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

About 34% were receiv<strong>in</strong>g cow/buffalo milk and home made semisolids/solids (10%)<br />

and, about 16% were receiv<strong>in</strong>g such foods at least 3 times a day.<br />

Among 12-35 months <strong>children</strong>, 51% 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 />

71% were receiv<strong>in</strong>g such foods at least 3 times a day.<br />

About 90% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> were completely immunized. About 85% <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 74-85% <strong>of</strong> 18-59 months <strong>children</strong> received the stipulated two doses.<br />

Less than 1% <strong>of</strong> 12-59 months <strong>children</strong> received 60-90 IFA tablets while less<br />

than 1% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> consumed 60-90 tablets.<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>fant exhibited cl<strong>in</strong>ical sign <strong>of</strong> nutritional deficiency, while about<br />

1% <strong>children</strong> had conjunctival xerosis and 0.2% had Bitot spot.<br />

About 57% <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 6-11 months <strong>children</strong>, which tended to decrease with<br />

<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>


<strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> age. About 83% <strong>of</strong> the mothers reported that they generally consult<br />

private practitioner, while 16% 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 />

<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>


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 />

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 />

<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>


Accord<strong>in</strong>g to NFHS-3 10 , <strong>in</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh, 60% <strong>of</strong>


The results <strong>of</strong> the study carried out <strong>in</strong> Ujja<strong>in</strong> 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> Ujja<strong>in</strong> District<br />

The Ujja<strong>in</strong> district is bounded by the districts <strong>of</strong> Shajapur to the northeast and<br />

east, Indore to the south, Dewas to the southeast, Dhar to the southwest, and<br />

Ratlam to the west and northwest. The total area <strong>of</strong> District is 6091 sq.Km. with a<br />

population <strong>of</strong> 17,09,885 (2001 census), with a population density <strong>of</strong> 281/sq.km. The<br />

district has a sex ratio <strong>of</strong> 940. The District literacy rate is 71.2 with 57.9 females.<br />

Largely depends on the ra<strong>in</strong>fall for its cultivation. The pr<strong>in</strong>cipal crops <strong>in</strong> the District<br />

are Wheat, Maize, and Jowar.<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>


3.2.4 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> 396 households from 20 villages were covered for the study (Table<br />

1). A total <strong>of</strong> 464 <strong>children</strong> (Boys:246; Girls:218)


4.2.1 Community<br />

About 44% <strong>of</strong> households covered for survey belonged to backward<br />

communities, while 23% belonged to other communities. Scheduled Caste and<br />

Scheduled Tribe population accounted for 31% and 3% respectively.<br />

4.2.2 Type <strong>of</strong> family<br />

About 40% were nuclear families and 45% were jo<strong>in</strong>t families, while the<br />

rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 15% were extended nuclear families.<br />

4.2.3 Family size<br />

The average family size was 6.9. About 22% <strong>of</strong> the HHs had family size <strong>of</strong> ≤<br />

4 members, 61% had 5-9, and 17% <strong>of</strong> HHs had ≥10 members.<br />

4.2.4 Literacy status <strong>of</strong> father<br />

About 69% <strong>of</strong> the fathers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>children</strong> were literates. About 32% had<br />

an education level <strong>of</strong> 8-10 th class, about 22% had school<strong>in</strong>g up to 5 th class, about 6%<br />

each were studied up to <strong>in</strong>termediate and 6-7 th class, while 4% had an education<br />

level <strong>of</strong> graduation & above.<br />

4.2.5 Literacy status <strong>of</strong> mother<br />

About 45% <strong>of</strong> the mothers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>children</strong> were literates. About 12% had<br />

an education <strong>of</strong> 8-10 th class, 25% had school<strong>in</strong>g up to 5 th class, 5% were studied<br />

upto 6-7 th class, and only 2% were educated up to <strong>in</strong>termediate and above.<br />

4.2.6 Household landhold<strong>in</strong>g<br />

About 47% <strong>of</strong> households did not posses any agricultural land, about 24%<br />

were large farmers (≥ 5 acres), 17% were small farmers (2.5 - 5 acres), while 13%<br />

were marg<strong>in</strong>al farmers (


4.2.9 Per capita monthly <strong>in</strong>come<br />

The average monthly per capita <strong>in</strong>come (PCI) <strong>of</strong> HHs was Rs 586. About 39%<br />

had average PCI <strong>of</strong> Rs.


each had ANC at PHC/CHC or private cl<strong>in</strong>ic, 14% each <strong>of</strong> mothers had ANCs at<br />

Anganwadi Center (AWC) or sub-center.<br />

In about 74% <strong>of</strong> cases, the ANCs were conducted by either Medical <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />

(40.6%) or by ANM (33.3%). In about 19% <strong>of</strong> cases, the ANCs were conducted by<br />

Private doctors. Major components <strong>of</strong> ANC <strong>in</strong>cluded physical exam<strong>in</strong>ation (85.7%),<br />

weight record<strong>in</strong>g (81%), haemoglob<strong>in</strong> estimation (73.8%), ur<strong>in</strong>e exam<strong>in</strong>ation (71.4%),<br />

and blood pressure measurement (69%). About 64% each <strong>of</strong> the women received<br />

advice from health personnel to consume more green leafy vegetables, attend ANCs<br />

regularly and consume more vegetables & fruits. About 69% <strong>of</strong> women were advised to<br />

consume IFA tablets dur<strong>in</strong>g pregnancy.<br />

About 93% <strong>of</strong> pregnant women received IFA tablets. While, about 50% received<br />

≥90 tablets, only 33% consumed ≥ 90 tablets dur<strong>in</strong>g the pregnancy. The IFA tablets<br />

were received mostly from ANM (28.6%) and AWW (27.1%). About 93% <strong>of</strong> the mothers<br />

reportedly received two doses <strong>of</strong> TT, while 5% received one dose.<br />

4.5.3 Particulars <strong>of</strong> last Delivery (Mothers hav<strong>in</strong>g


4.6.2 Infant and Young child feed<strong>in</strong>g practices (IYCF)<br />

4.6.2.1 0-11 month <strong>children</strong><br />

Information on breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g and complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g practices with<br />

respect to


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 />

59.1<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

9.1<br />

13.6<br />

7.3<br />

10.9<br />

0<br />


currently given <strong>in</strong>cluded homemade semi-solids (75%), cow/buffalo milk (72.1%) &<br />

home made solids (71%). The most commonly used food groups <strong>in</strong>cluded were<br />

cereals & millets, pulses, roots & tubers, fats & oils, fruits, GLV, other vegetables,<br />

Milk & milk products, fruits (about 37-86%), eggs (32.7%) and flesh foods (19.7%).<br />

About 5% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> were fed ≥ 4 times a day, 66% were fed 3 times a day,<br />

while 27% were fed ≤ 2 times a day. About 59% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> consumed food<br />

themselves mostly with hands. About 34% <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> were fed by their mothers. The<br />

feed<strong>in</strong>g was supervised by their mothers (78.4%) (Table 13).<br />

4.6.3 Care <strong>of</strong> the Child<br />

About 77% <strong>of</strong> mothers were reportedly tak<strong>in</strong>g care <strong>of</strong> their <strong>children</strong> by themselves at<br />

home, while 18% were cared by either the grand parents or by the older sibl<strong>in</strong>gs. About<br />

4% <strong>of</strong> the mothers carried their <strong>children</strong> to the work-spot (Table 14).<br />

4.6.4 Personal Hygiene<br />

About 38% <strong>of</strong> mothers washed their hands with soap before feed<strong>in</strong>g the child.<br />

About half (50.2%) were us<strong>in</strong>g soap for wash<strong>in</strong>g their hands after defecation (Table<br />

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


A majority <strong>of</strong> the mothers <strong>in</strong> general stated that, they consult a private practitioner<br />

(83.4%), while the rest visited the PHC (16.4%), when the <strong>children</strong> fall sick, (Table 16).<br />

About 19% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> reportedly had diarrhoea dur<strong>in</strong>g the previous fortnight and<br />

about 20% received ORS, either home made or that given by ANM/AWW or commercial<br />

ORS. About 44% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> reportedly had acute respiratory <strong>in</strong>fection and only 3%<br />

had received co-trimoxazole.<br />

4.6.6 Participation <strong>in</strong> ICDS Supplementary feed<strong>in</strong>g Programme.<br />

About 94% <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 75% be<strong>in</strong>g regular. The extent <strong>of</strong><br />

participation was observed to be high (97%) among 36-59 months compared to 93%<br />

among 6-35 months age group (Table 17). A higher proportion <strong>of</strong> older <strong>children</strong> (36-<br />

59 months) were regular (86%), than their younger counterparts (69%).<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 90% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong> were fully immunized, 8% were<br />

partially immunized and 2% were not immunized. About 94-98% received BCG, DPT<br />

and OPV, while 91% received measles. Major source <strong>of</strong> this <strong>in</strong>formation was from<br />

parents (73.7%), followed by mother and child protection card (22.8%), and<br />

immunization card (1.8%).<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 85% <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 about 82-89% among 18-59 months <strong>children</strong>,<br />

about 84% <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> <strong>of</strong> 9-17 months received massive dose <strong>of</strong> vitam<strong>in</strong> A. About 74-<br />

85% <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 4-<br />

8% received one dose only. In a majority <strong>of</strong> cases, the massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A was<br />

adm<strong>in</strong>istered at AWC (82.2%), mostly either by AWW (56.6%) or ANM (26.4%). The<br />

major reasons for non-receipt <strong>of</strong> massive dose <strong>of</strong> Vitam<strong>in</strong> A were ‘not <strong>of</strong>fered’<br />

(6.1%), ‘unaware <strong>of</strong> need (3.2%).<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 />

98.2<br />

98.2<br />

96.5<br />

94.7<br />

96.5 95.6 93.9<br />

80<br />

91.2<br />

90.3<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

7.9<br />

1.8<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 25% <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>, either from AWW (21.5%) or ANM (4%). None <strong>of</strong> the <strong>children</strong><br />

received and consumed ≥ 90 IFA 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 />

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 />

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 />

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 />

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


Stunt<strong>in</strong>g<br />

In general, about 40% <strong>of</strong>


Fig.10 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among


Type <strong>of</strong> Family<br />

The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight, though not statistically significant, was higher<br />

among nuclear & extended families (49%) compared to those liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> jo<strong>in</strong>t families<br />

(41%). The prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g was significantly (p


Fig.11 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among


from landless households (30%) compared to to those possess<strong>in</strong>g land (24%).<br />

However, these differences were not statistically significant (Fig.13).<br />

Occupation <strong>of</strong> father<br />

The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight was significantly (p


Fig.13 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition among


Fig.15 Prevalence (%) <strong>of</strong> Undernutrition ` among


41% respectively), compared to those liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> pucca houses (37% & 28%<br />

respectively). Similarly, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> wast<strong>in</strong>g was higher among those liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />

kutcha houses (32%) compared to those liv<strong>in</strong>g semi pucca (25%) or pucca houses<br />

(22%) (Fig.16). However, none <strong>of</strong> the differences were found to be statistically<br />

significant.<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 stunt<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 (44% & 39% respectively) compared to those us<strong>in</strong>g ‘other’ sources (58% &<br />

50% respectively). However, the differences were statistically not significant. The<br />

prevalence <strong>of</strong> wast<strong>in</strong>g was similar among those <strong>children</strong> from households with<br />

tap/tube as source <strong>of</strong> dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water (27%) and others (28%).<br />

Type <strong>of</strong> cook<strong>in</strong>g fuel<br />

The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight, though not statistically significant, was higher<br />

among <strong>children</strong> from HHs us<strong>in</strong>g firewood as cook<strong>in</strong>g fuel (46%), compared to those<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g ‘other’ fuels (36%). On the other hand, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g was lower<br />

among <strong>children</strong> from HHs us<strong>in</strong>g firewood as cook<strong>in</strong>g fuels (39%), compared to HHs<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g as ‘other’ cook<strong>in</strong>g fuel (46%). The prevalence <strong>of</strong> wast<strong>in</strong>g was significantly<br />

(p


prevalence <strong>of</strong> wast<strong>in</strong>g, though not significant was lower among <strong>children</strong> <strong>of</strong> those<br />

households us<strong>in</strong>g sanitary latr<strong>in</strong>es (20%), compared to those not us<strong>in</strong>g or not hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />

sanitary latr<strong>in</strong>es (28%).<br />

Separate Kitchen<br />

The prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight and wast<strong>in</strong>g was higher among <strong>children</strong> from<br />

HHs who did not have separate kitchen (48% & 30% respectively) compared to<br />

those hav<strong>in</strong>g separate kitchen (41% & 23% respectively). However, the differences<br />

were statistically not significant. The prevalence <strong>of</strong> stunt<strong>in</strong>g was similar among<br />

<strong>children</strong> from HHs who did not have separate kitchen (40%) and to those hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />

separate kitchen (39%).<br />

History <strong>of</strong> Morbidity dur<strong>in</strong>g preced<strong>in</strong>g fortnight<br />

No significant difference was observed <strong>in</strong> the prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight, and<br />

stunt<strong>in</strong>g 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 and those <strong>children</strong> with no history <strong>of</strong> morbidity.<br />

The prevalence <strong>of</strong> wast<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 93% <strong>of</strong> pregnant women had <strong>under</strong>gone antenatal check-up,<br />

55% had at least three ANCs and 98% received TT immunization. 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 76% deliveries took place either <strong>in</strong> Government or<br />

Private hospitals and about 69% were conducted by medical doctors.<br />

Birth weights were recorded on about 80% <strong>of</strong> the newborns and the records<br />

were available for 63% <strong>in</strong>fants. The proportion <strong>of</strong> low birth weight (LBW) was about<br />

40% <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 9%<br />

<strong>of</strong> the mothers reportedly <strong>in</strong>itiated breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> one hour after delivery which<br />

is lower to that reported by the NFHS-3 for the State (16%), while 59% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

mothers <strong>in</strong>itiated breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g between 1-3 hours. Pre-lacteals were given <strong>in</strong> about<br />

21% <strong>of</strong> the newborns. This f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g is not encourag<strong>in</strong>g as Pre-lacteal feeds might<br />

harm the immature gut <strong>of</strong> the child, especially if they are contam<strong>in</strong>ated and early<br />

<strong>in</strong>itiation <strong>of</strong> breast feed<strong>in</strong>g is the primary determ<strong>in</strong>ant <strong>of</strong> maternal milk production and<br />

secretion. Avoidance <strong>of</strong> other fluids or foods is essential to optimize breast milk<br />

<strong>in</strong>take by the newborn. Most <strong>of</strong> the other fluids or foods are less nutritious than<br />

breast milk and therefore, if displacement occurs, the <strong>in</strong>fant may be at a nutritional<br />

<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>


disadvantage even if prepared hygienically 19 . In many communities, it is traditionally<br />

believed that colostrum is unhealthy and therefore is harmful to the baby. However <strong>in</strong><br />

the present study, colostrum was given by majority (85.5%) <strong>of</strong> mothers which is good<br />

for the child’s health and nutrition and such desirable practices should be<br />

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> Ujja<strong>in</strong> <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 35% <strong>of</strong><br />

the 6-11 months <strong>children</strong> were gett<strong>in</strong>g complementary feeds, while only 9% 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 formula milk, cow/buffalo milk and home made semi-solids. The<br />

frequency <strong>of</strong> feed<strong>in</strong>g was at least 3 times <strong>in</strong> 16% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>fants. Effective<br />

immunization programme aga<strong>in</strong>st the common communicable diseases are required<br />

for the majority <strong>of</strong> the susceptible populations particularly <strong>in</strong> the develop<strong>in</strong>g<br />

countries, where<strong>in</strong> the risk <strong>of</strong> disability or death from preventable <strong>in</strong>fectious diseases<br />

is a matter <strong>of</strong> concern. Therefore, coverage <strong>under</strong> universal immunization<br />

programme should be 100%. The coverage for complete immunization is about 90%<br />

<strong>in</strong> this 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 82-89% <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 74-85% <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 very low (25%), while only 1% received 60-90<br />

tablets <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g, poor coverage. Low compliance (less than 1% consumed 60-90<br />

tablets) <strong>in</strong>dicates weak education component. There is a need to strengthen the<br />

service 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> 6-11 months and 12-23<br />

<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>


months <strong>children</strong> as compared to the other age group. The probable reasons for this<br />

could be prevail<strong>in</strong>g suboptimal <strong>in</strong>fant and young child feed<strong>in</strong>g practices coupled with<br />

non-receipt <strong>of</strong> appropriate health care management.<br />

Consumption <strong>of</strong> adequately (≥15 ppm) Iodised salt is very high (78.8%) <strong>in</strong> the<br />

district compared to National figure (51%) and State <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh (36%)<br />

(NFHS-3). <strong>Nutritional</strong> status <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants and young <strong>children</strong> is not only a vital health<br />

issue, but it is also central to susta<strong>in</strong>able growth and development <strong>of</strong> the child 22 .In<br />

the present study, the prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>weight, stunt<strong>in</strong>g and wast<strong>in</strong>g was 45%,<br />

40% and 27% respectively. It was observed that the prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>under</strong>nutrition<br />

<strong>in</strong>creased as <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>of</strong> age. Undernutrition <strong>in</strong> all its three forms cont<strong>in</strong>ues to be a<br />

significant problem <strong>in</strong> the district <strong>of</strong> Ujja<strong>in</strong>, even though the current prevalence <strong>in</strong> the<br />

district is lower than that reported for the State <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh by NFHS-3<br />

(2007) and NNMB (2006). Probably, factors such as, the energy and nutrient density<br />

<strong>of</strong> the complementary foods given, the frequency and variety <strong>of</strong> foods <strong>of</strong>fered,<br />

hygiene aspects <strong>of</strong> food preparation, personal hygiene, the amount <strong>of</strong> breast milk<br />

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 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<br />

among HH <strong>of</strong> vulnerable section <strong>of</strong> society (SC & ST), among <strong>children</strong> <strong>of</strong> illiterate<br />

fathers, among <strong>children</strong> whose parents are <strong>in</strong>volved occupation such as labour and<br />

those not hav<strong>in</strong>g facility <strong>of</strong> sanitary latr<strong>in</strong>e. Promotion <strong>of</strong> better <strong>in</strong>fant and young child<br />

feed<strong>in</strong>g practices, improv<strong>in</strong>g distribution and consumption <strong>of</strong> IFA tablets dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />

pregnancy and improv<strong>in</strong>g ICDS supplementation among 6-59 months <strong>children</strong> 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 />

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 />

<strong>Nutritional</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>of</strong>


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) 396<br />

Under 5 <strong>year</strong> <strong>children</strong> for anthropometry<br />

464<br />

(Boys: 246; Girls: 218)<br />

Children below 12 months 110<br />

Children 12-35 months 211<br />

Children 36-59 months 143<br />

Spot test<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> HHs salt for iod<strong>in</strong>e 396<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 396<br />

Scheduled Tribe 2.5<br />

Scheduled Caste 30.6<br />

Backward Community 43.7<br />

Others 23.2<br />

Nuclear 40.4<br />

Extended Nuclear 14.6<br />

Jo<strong>in</strong>t 45.0<br />

1 -4 21.7<br />

5 – 9 60.9<br />

≥ 10 17.4<br />

Average Family Size 6.9<br />

Literacy status <strong>of</strong> Father<br />

Literacy status <strong>of</strong> Mother<br />

Illiterate 31.1<br />

Read & write 0.8<br />

1 – 5 Class 21.5<br />

6 – 7 Class 5.6<br />

8 – 10 Class 31.6<br />

Intermediate 6.1<br />

Graduate & above 3.5<br />

Illiterate 55.1<br />

Read & write 1.0<br />

1 – 5 Class 24.7<br />

6 – 7 Class 4.8<br />

8 – 10 Class 12.1<br />

Intermediate 1.5<br />

Graduate & above 0.3<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 396<br />

Nil 46.7<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 396<br />

Kutcha 33.8<br />

Semi Pucca 56.4<br />

Pucca 9.8<br />

Open Well 7.6<br />

Tube Well 86.4<br />

Tap 5.8<br />

Stream/River 0.3<br />

Firewood 94.3<br />

Kerosene 0.3<br />

Bio- Gas 0.3<br />

LPG 5.1<br />

Household electricity present 94.4<br />

Sanitary Latr<strong>in</strong>e<br />

Present and <strong>in</strong> use 19.9<br />

Present and not <strong>in</strong> use 2.0<br />

Absent 78.1<br />

Separate Kitchen Present 44.9<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 396<br />

Powdered salt 4.3<br />

Crystal Salt -<br />

Free-flow<strong>in</strong>g 95.7<br />

0 ppm 3.0<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 42<br />

Undergone Antenatal check-up (ANC)<br />

Total number <strong>of</strong> ANCs<br />

Yes 92.9<br />

No 7.1<br />

One 2.4<br />

Two 35.7<br />

Three 28.6<br />

Four 14.9<br />

≥ <strong>five</strong> 11.9<br />

Not availed ANC 7.1<br />

Undergone First ANC at (Weeks <strong>of</strong> gestation)<br />

Place <strong>of</strong> ANC<br />

≤ 8 weeks 21.4<br />

9- 12 weeks 38.2<br />

13- 16 weeks 2.4<br />

17-20 weeks 9.5<br />

>20 weeks 21.4<br />

Not availed ANC 7.1<br />

Home 2.4<br />

AWC 14.3<br />

Sub-centre 14.3<br />

PHC/CHC 19.0<br />

Taluk/Dist.hospital 23.8<br />

Private Cl<strong>in</strong>ic 19.0<br />

Not availed ANC 7.1<br />

ANC conducted by<br />

LHV / ANM 33.3<br />

Medical Officer 40.6<br />

Pvt. Doctor 19.0<br />

Not availed ANC 7.1<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 42<br />

Components <strong>of</strong> ANC*<br />

Physical Exam<strong>in</strong>ation 85.7<br />

Weight Record<strong>in</strong>g 81.0<br />

Ur<strong>in</strong>e Test 71.4<br />

Haemoglob<strong>in</strong> Estimation 73.8<br />

Blood pressure measurement 69.0<br />

Health & Nutrition advise given dur<strong>in</strong>g ANC<br />

Yes 71.4<br />

No 21.5<br />

Not availed ANC 7.1<br />

If yes, what advise*<br />

To attend for regular checkups 64.3<br />

To consume more GLVs 64.3<br />

To consume more Vegetables & fruits 64.3<br />

To take IFA tablets for 100 days 69.0<br />

Others 38.1<br />

Reasons for not avail<strong>in</strong>g ANCs*<br />

Not aware <strong>of</strong> the need 7.1<br />

No faith 7.1<br />

No ANC held <strong>in</strong> the village 7.1<br />

Inconvenience 7.1<br />

Loss <strong>of</strong> wage 7.1<br />

TT Immunization receiv<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Yes 97.6<br />

No 2.4<br />

If yes, No. <strong>of</strong> doses<br />

One dose 4.8<br />

Two doses 92.8<br />

Not received 2.4<br />

Reasons for not receiv<strong>in</strong>g TT<br />

Not aware <strong>of</strong> the need 2.4<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 42<br />

Yes 92.9<br />

No 7.1<br />

ANM 28.6<br />

AWW 27.1<br />

MO-PHC 7.1<br />

Not received 7.1<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 464<br />

First 36.2<br />

Second 30.4<br />

Third 17.9<br />

Fourth 9.1<br />

Fifth and above 6.5<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 <strong>in</strong>terval<br />

between last two births<br />

Interval between last two births(months)<br />

Percent<br />

n 296<br />


Table - 10<br />

Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong>


Table - 11<br />

Distribution (%) <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants (


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 68<br />

Foods generally <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> home made complementary foods*<br />

Cereals & Millets 11.8<br />

Pulses 16.2<br />

Green Leafy Vegetables 1.5<br />

Roots & Tubers 1.5<br />

Others vegetables 4.4<br />

Fruits 5.9<br />

Milk & milk products 14.7<br />

Eggs 1.5<br />

Meat & Chicken 35.3<br />

Fats & Oils 1.5<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> complementary feeds per day<br />

Mode <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g<br />

2 19.1<br />

3 11.8<br />

4 2.9<br />

5 1.5<br />

Not yet started 64.7<br />

Mother with spoon 4.4<br />

Mother with hand 27.9<br />

Self with spoon 1.5<br />

Self by hand 1.5<br />

Feed<strong>in</strong>g bottle -<br />

Not yet started 64.7<br />

Supervision <strong>of</strong> complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g by<br />

* Multiple responses<br />

Mother 33.8<br />

Father 1.5<br />

Not yet started 64.7<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 208<br />

Children solely breast fed 1.9<br />

Children currently Breast fed + complementary feed<strong>in</strong>g 50.5<br />

Weaned 47.6<br />

Type <strong>of</strong> food currently be<strong>in</strong>g given*<br />

Cow/buffalo milk 72.1<br />

Formula milk 16.8<br />

Commercial baby food 12.0<br />

Home made semi-solids 75.0<br />

Home made solids 71.0<br />

Not yet started 1.9<br />

Foods generally <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> home made foods*<br />

Cereals & Millets 76.0<br />

Pulses & legumes 86.1<br />

Green Leafy Vegetables 57.7<br />

Other Vegetables 44.7<br />

Roots & Tubers 37.0<br />

Fruits 73.1<br />

Milk & milk products 56.7<br />

Eggs 32.7<br />

Flesh foods 19.7<br />

Fats & Oils 51.4<br />

Not yet started CF 1.9<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 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 208<br />

≤2 26.9<br />

3 66.4<br />

≥4 4.8<br />

Not yet started CF 1.9<br />

Mother with spoon 1.0<br />

Mother with hand 34.1<br />

Self with spoon 4.3<br />

Self by hand 58.7<br />

Not yet started CF 1.9<br />

Mother 78.4<br />

Father 0.5<br />

Elder Sibl<strong>in</strong>g 4.3<br />

Grand parents 13.9<br />

Others 1.0<br />

Not yet started CF 1.9<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 42 42.9 31.0 42.9 59.5<br />

6-11 68 44.1 33.8 55.9 69.1<br />

12-23 114 48.2 20.2 47.4 59.6<br />

24-35 97 40.2 22.7 41.2 54.6<br />

36-47 96 31.3 4.2 36.5 45.8<br />

48-59 47 36.2 8.5 38.3 53.2<br />

Pooled 464 40.7 19.2 43.8 56.5<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 279 143 422<br />

Participat<strong>in</strong>g 93.2 96.5 94.3<br />

Regular 69.9 86.0 75.3<br />

Irregular 23.3 10.5 19.0<br />

Not participat<strong>in</strong>g 6.8 3.5 5.7<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 114<br />

Received all vacc<strong>in</strong>es ( Fully Immunized) 90.3<br />

Partially immunized 7.9<br />

Not immunized 1.8<br />

Reasons for no / <strong>in</strong>complete immunization<br />

BCG 98.2<br />

DPT1 98.2<br />

DPT2 96.5<br />

DPT3 94.7<br />

OPV1 96.5<br />

OPV2 95.6<br />

OPV3 93.9<br />

Measles 91.2<br />

Unaware <strong>of</strong> need 0.9<br />

Time & place not known/ <strong>in</strong>convenient 3.5<br />

Source <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation<br />

Not <strong>of</strong>fered 4.4<br />

Mother busy 0.9<br />

Fully immunized 90.3<br />

Mother & child protection card 22.8<br />

Immunization card 1.8<br />

Parents 73.7<br />

Not immunized 1.8<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 dose<br />

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. <strong>of</strong> doses <strong>of</strong> vitam<strong>in</strong> A<br />

Place <strong>of</strong> adm<strong>in</strong>istration<br />

n 83 150 143 376<br />

Yes 84.0 82.0 88.8 85.0<br />

No 9.7 8.7 5.6 7.7<br />

Do not remember 6.3 9.3 5.6 7.2<br />

One 84.0 8.0 4.2 23.3<br />

Two NA 74.0 84.6 61.7<br />

Not received 9.7 8.7 5.6 7.7<br />

Do not remember 6.3 9.3 5.6 7.2<br />

Home 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.5<br />

AWC 80.8 79.3 86.0 82.2<br />

SC 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3<br />

PHC 0.0 1.3 2.8 1.6<br />

Not received/do not remember 16.0 18.0 11.2 15.0<br />

Massive dose vitam<strong>in</strong> A adm<strong>in</strong>istered by<br />

AWW 49.3 52.0 65.7 56.6<br />

ANM 32.7 28.7 20.3 26.4<br />

LHV 1.9 1.3 2.8 2.0<br />

Not received/do not remember 16.0 18.0 11.2 15.0<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 2.4 5.3 1.4 3.2<br />

Not <strong>of</strong>fered 5.8 7.3 4.9 6.1<br />

Time or place not convenient 1.5 0.0 1.4 0.9<br />

Child was sick 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3<br />

Mothers was busy 0.0 2.0 1.4 1.3<br />

Fear <strong>of</strong> side effects 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3<br />

Others 2.6 1.3 0.0 1.1<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 to receipt <strong>of</strong> Iron & Folic<br />

Acid Tablets<br />

Age group (months)<br />

Particulars<br />

12-35 36-59 12-59<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 />

n 211 143 354<br />

Yes 23.2 28.7 25.4<br />

No 76.8 71.3 74.6<br />

ANM 2.8 5.6 4.0<br />

AWW 20.4 23.1 21.5<br />

Not received 76.8 71.3 74.6<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 110 211 143 446<br />

NAD 100.0 93.4 95.9 96.1<br />

Emaciation - 5.7 0.7 3.0<br />

Marasmus - 2.4 - 1.1<br />

Bitot spots - - 0.7 0.2<br />

Dental caries - 1.9 - 0.9<br />

Conjunctival xerosis - 1.9 0.7 1.1<br />

Angular stomatitis - 0.9 - 0.4<br />

Hair sparse - 1.9 0.7 1.1<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 50.9 0.78 3.2 0.66


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 />

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 SD<br />

Classification: By Socio-demographic variables<br />

Particulars<br />

1. Community<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 SD<br />

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

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!