Skip to main content

Table 3 Change in knowledge about fruits and vegetables, malnutrition, anaemia, intestinal parasitic infections and dietary diversity at baseline and during follow-up across the different study arms in Dolakha and Ramechhap districts, Nepal (March–May 2015 and June 2016)

From: Nutritional and health status of children 15 months after integrated school garden, nutrition, and water, sanitation and hygiene interventions: a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Nepal

Nutrition variables

Categories

Control

SG-intervention (SG)

Combined intervention (SG+)

Effect of SG-intervention (95% CI)

p-value

Effect of combined intervention (95% CI)

p-value

Baseline (n = 313)

End-line (n = 313)

Baseline (n = 172)

End-line (n = 172)

Baseline (197)

End-line (n = 197)

Self-reported daily requirement of frequency of fruit and vegetable consumptiona

0

34 (10.9)

0 (0.0)

29 (16.9)

0 (0.0)

17 (8.6)

0 (0.0)

0.15 (−0.33–0.63)c

0.55

0.15 (−0.32–0.63)c

0.53

1

7 (2.2)

64 (20.5)

7 (4.1)

25 (14.5)

11 (5.6)

28 (14.2)

    

2

20 (6.4)

166 (53.0)

18 (10.5)

98 (57.0)

19 (9.6)

120 (60.9)

    

3

117 (37.4)

0 (0.0)

68 (39.5)

0 (0.0)

98 (49.8)

0 (0.0)

    

4

101 (32.3)

0 (0.0)

29 (16.9)

0 (0.0)

38 (19.3)

0 (0.0)

    

≥5

34 (10.9)

83 (26.5)

21 (12.2)

49 (28.5)

14 (7.1)

49 (24.9)

    

Opinion about fruits and vegetables consumptionsa,b

0

24 (7.7)

27 (8.6)

15 (8.7)

11 (6.4)

20 (10.1)

3 (1.5)

0.07 (−0.12–0.25)c

0.48

0.21 (0.02–0.39)d

0.03

1

58 (18.5)

12 (3.8)

61 (35.5)

0 (0.0)

38 (19.3)

0 (0.0)

    

2

231 (73.8)

274 (87.5)

96 (55.8)

161 (93.6)

139 (70.6)

194 (98.5)

    

Consumption of green vegetables prior to day of survey

 

123 (39.3)

177 (56.5)

50 (29.1)

98 (57.0)

87 (44.2)

102 (51.8)

0.70 (0.10–4.86)d

0.72

0.76 (0.10–5.89)-d

0.80

Heard about malnutrition

 

83 (26.5)

213 (68.0)

44 (25.6)

122 (70.9)

87 (44.2)

174 (88.3)

1.48 (0.85–2.57)d

0.17

6.08 (3.01–12.3)d

< 0.001

Perception of malnutrition as a problem

 

67 (21.4)

189 (88.7)

34 (19.8)

115 (94.3)

73 (37.1)

165 (94.3)

2.19 (0.26–18.6)d

0.47

2.51 (0.34–18.5)d

0.37

Responses related to the causes of malnutrition

Disease

0 (0.0)

44 (14.1)

0 (0.0)

3 (1.7)

2 (1.0)

5 (2.5)

0.09 (0.005–1.58)d

0.10

0.12 (0.01–1.43)d

0.09

Lack of food

19 (6.1)

95 (30.3)

11 (6.4)

36 (20.9)

11 (5.6)

63 (32.0)

2.53 (0.47–13.5)d

0.28

1.10 (0.20–5.95)d

0.91

Irregular meal

19 (6.1)

108 (34.5)

14 (8.1)

46 (26.7)

30 (15.2)

83 (42.1)

2.06 (0.49–8.62)d

0.32

0.36 (0.08–1.77)d

0.21

Poorly prepared food

2 (0.6)

47 (15.0)

1 (0.6)

14 (8.1)

3 (1.5)

19 (9.6)

0.28 (0.08–1.02)d

0.05

0.80 (0.26–2.45)d

0.70

Lack of means to afford good food

3 (1.0)

36 (11.5)

0 (0.0)

10 (5.8)

5 (2.5)

24 (12.2)

0.58 (0.12–2.75)d

0.50

1.90 (0.45–8.10)d

0.39

Heard about anaemia

 

128 (63.4)

122 (60.1)

49 (24.3)

36 (17.7)

25 (12.4)

45 (22.2)

0.52 (0.27–1.00)d

0.05

0.46 (0.24–0.87)d

0.02

Heard about night blindness

 

126 (55.7)

156 (54.2)

62 (27.4

71 (24.6)

38 (16.8)

61 (21.2)

0.98 (0.23–4.07)d

0.97

0.52 (0.13–2.13)d

0.36

Heard about intestinal parasitic infections

 

50 (37.6)

199 (57.3)

42 (31.6)

66 (19.0)

41 (30.8)

82 (23.6)

0.26 (0.07–0.92)d

0.04

0.68 (0.18–2.63)d

0.58

Dietary diversity scorea

1

2 (0.6)

28 (9.0)

2 (1.2)

24 (14.0)

0 (0.0)

14 (7.1)

−0.67 (−1.58–0.24)c

0.15

−0.30 (−1.22–0.63)c

0.53

2

30 (9.6)

33 (10.5)

26 (15.1)

27 (15.7)

11 (5.6)

25 (12.7)

    

3

106 (33.9)

32 (10.2)

53 (30.8)

21 (12.2)

50 (25.4)

21 (10.7)

    

4

109 (34.8)

29 (9.3)

53 (30.8)

21 (12.2)

72 (36.6)

22 (11.2)

    

5

50 (16.0)

30 (9.6)

32 (18.6)

22 (12.8)

49 (24.9)

29 (14.7)

    

6

15 (4.8)

27 (8.6)

5 (2.9)

20 (11.6)

14 (7.1)

29 (14.7)

    

7

1 (0.3)

29 (9.3)

0 (0.0)

13 (7.6)

1 (0.5)

34 (17.3)

    

8

0 (0.0)

44 (14.1)

1 (0.6)

13 (7.6)

0 (0.0)

19 (9.6)

    

9

0 (0.0)

61 (19.5)

0 (0.0)

11 (6.4)

0 (0.0)

4 (2.0)

    
  1. SG School garden
  2. SG+ School garden, nutrition, health and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)
  3. aThese variables were treated as numerical in the analysis
  4. bHere, “0” = It is not good, “1” = I am not sure and “2” = It is good
  5. cIntervention effects were estimated by mixed linear models for the respective end-line outcome, including the factor group and random intercepts for the schools, while also adjusting for the outcome observed at baseline, the district, sex and age of the child, and education level and socioeconomic status of the caregivers. The effect estimates can be interpreted as adjusted differences in the mean changes of the respective variables between the given intervention group and the control group
  6. dOdds ratio of desired follow-up outcome between the respective intervention group and the control group from a mixed logistic regression model, including the factor group and random intercepts for the schools, while also adjusting for the outcome observed at baseline, the district, sex and age of the child, and education level and socioeconomic status of caregivers