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 variablesCategoriesControlSG-intervention (SG)Combined intervention (SG+)Effect of SG-intervention (95% CI)p-valueEffect 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 consumptiona034 (10.9)0 (0.0)29 (16.9)0 (0.0)17 (8.6)0 (0.0)0.15 (−0.33–0.63)c0.550.15 (−0.32–0.63)c0.53
17 (2.2)64 (20.5)7 (4.1)25 (14.5)11 (5.6)28 (14.2)    
220 (6.4)166 (53.0)18 (10.5)98 (57.0)19 (9.6)120 (60.9)    
3117 (37.4)0 (0.0)68 (39.5)0 (0.0)98 (49.8)0 (0.0)    
4101 (32.3)0 (0.0)29 (16.9)0 (0.0)38 (19.3)0 (0.0)    
≥534 (10.9)83 (26.5)21 (12.2)49 (28.5)14 (7.1)49 (24.9)    
Opinion about fruits and vegetables consumptionsa,b024 (7.7)27 (8.6)15 (8.7)11 (6.4)20 (10.1)3 (1.5)0.07 (−0.12–0.25)c0.480.21 (0.02–0.39)d0.03
158 (18.5)12 (3.8)61 (35.5)0 (0.0)38 (19.3)0 (0.0)    
2231 (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)d0.720.76 (0.10–5.89)-d0.80
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)d0.176.08 (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)d0.472.51 (0.34–18.5)d0.37
Responses related to the causes of malnutritionDisease0 (0.0)44 (14.1)0 (0.0)3 (1.7)2 (1.0)5 (2.5)0.09 (0.005–1.58)d0.100.12 (0.01–1.43)d0.09
Lack of food19 (6.1)95 (30.3)11 (6.4)36 (20.9)11 (5.6)63 (32.0)2.53 (0.47–13.5)d0.281.10 (0.20–5.95)d0.91
Irregular meal19 (6.1)108 (34.5)14 (8.1)46 (26.7)30 (15.2)83 (42.1)2.06 (0.49–8.62)d0.320.36 (0.08–1.77)d0.21
Poorly prepared food2 (0.6)47 (15.0)1 (0.6)14 (8.1)3 (1.5)19 (9.6)0.28 (0.08–1.02)d0.050.80 (0.26–2.45)d0.70
Lack of means to afford good food3 (1.0)36 (11.5)0 (0.0)10 (5.8)5 (2.5)24 (12.2)0.58 (0.12–2.75)d0.501.90 (0.45–8.10)d0.39
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)d0.050.46 (0.24–0.87)d0.02
Heard about night blindness 126 (55.7)156 (54.2)62 (27.471 (24.6)38 (16.8)61 (21.2)0.98 (0.23–4.07)d0.970.52 (0.13–2.13)d0.36
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)d0.040.68 (0.18–2.63)d0.58
Dietary diversity scorea12 (0.6)28 (9.0)2 (1.2)24 (14.0)0 (0.0)14 (7.1)−0.67 (−1.58–0.24)c0.15−0.30 (−1.22–0.63)c0.53
230 (9.6)33 (10.5)26 (15.1)27 (15.7)11 (5.6)25 (12.7)    
3106 (33.9)32 (10.2)53 (30.8)21 (12.2)50 (25.4)21 (10.7)    
4109 (34.8)29 (9.3)53 (30.8)21 (12.2)72 (36.6)22 (11.2)    
550 (16.0)30 (9.6)32 (18.6)22 (12.8)49 (24.9)29 (14.7)    
615 (4.8)27 (8.6)5 (2.9)20 (11.6)14 (7.1)29 (14.7)    
71 (0.3)29 (9.3)0 (0.0)13 (7.6)1 (0.5)34 (17.3)    
80 (0.0)44 (14.1)1 (0.6)13 (7.6)0 (0.0)19 (9.6)    
90 (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