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

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

Effects	Univariable analysis			Multivariable analysis
Effects	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 suppression^d: no vs. yes	2.4	1.2–4.6	0.01	2.0	0.9–4.4	0.07

^aAbbreviations: aOR adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio, RUF ready-to-use food, MAM moderate acute malnutrition, SAM severe acute malnutrition
^bSub-optimal RUF intake is defined as if < 50% of RUF provided
^cExplanatory variables are included at P < 0.20 in multivariate analysis, exited at P ≥ 0.10
^dVirologic suppression is defined as viral load ≤50 copies/ml

ISSN: 1471-2458