Skip to main content

Table 4 Risk factors associated with sub-optimal RUF intake in HIV-infected participants 2 weeks after enrolment in the SNACS Study.a–b–c, Senegal

From: Adherence to ready-to-use food and acceptability of outpatient nutritional therapy in HIV-infected undernourished Senegalese adolescents: research-based recommendations for routine care

Effects Univariable analysis Multivariable analysis
OR 95% CI P value aOR 95% CI P value
Girls vs. boys 1.7 0.9–3.2 0.09 _ _ _
< 12 years vs ≥12 years 1.2 0.6–2.2 0.60 0.7 0.3–1.5 0.38
Decentralized setting vs Dakar 2.6 1.4–5.0 0.003 _ _ _
School level
 None vs. secondary 3.5 1.0–12.0 0.05 _ _ _
 Primary vs. secondary 1.8 0.5–5.8 0.36 _ _ _
HIV status undisclosed: yes vs. no 4.9 2.1–11.2 0.0002 5.1 1.9–13.9 0.002
Food insecurity: yes vs. no 2.8 1.2–6.3 0.01 2.8 1.1–7.2 0.03
Disliking RUF taste: yes vs. no 3.6 1.7–7.8 0.001 5.0 2.0–12.3 < 0.001
Disliking RUF taste * Food insecurity _ _ _ _ _ 0.001
Caregiver responsible for RUF management vs. participant 2.2 1.1–4.1 0.02 _ _ _
Participant needs encouragement to eat the RUF: yes vs. no 2.0 1.0–3.6 0.04 _ _ _
Participant eats RUF in several vs. single feeding 1.8 1.0–3.3 0.06 _ _ _
SAM vs. MAM 1.9 1.0–3.5 0.05 _ _ _
Virologic suppressiond: no vs. yes 2.4 1.2–4.6 0.01 2.0 0.9–4.4 0.07
  1. aAbbreviations: aOR adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio, RUF ready-to-use food, MAM moderate acute malnutrition, SAM severe acute malnutrition
  2. bSub-optimal RUF intake is defined as if < 50% of RUF provided
  3. cExplanatory variables are included at P < 0.20 in multivariate analysis, exited at P ≥ 0.10
  4. dVirologic suppression is defined as viral load ≤50 copies/ml
\