ArticleBMJ open2024
Caregivers' perceptions of feeding practices and diet diversity among children aged 12-59 months in a rural district of South India: an analytical cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to assess caregivers' perceptions of feeding practices (breastfeeding and complementary feeding) and diet diversity among children aged 12-59 months in a rural district of South India. The secondary objective was to identify potential predictors of these perceptions and diet diversity.
designAn analytical cross-sectional study was performed from March 2023 to May 2023.
settingIn a rural district of Tamil Nadu, South India.
participantsThis study included 301 mothers/caregivers of children between 12 and 59 months of age in a rural district of Tamil Nadu. The research gathered demographic information from caregivers, including details such as age, educational background, occupation, relationship with the child and place of residence. Additionally, the caregivers' perspectives were evaluated through a questionnaire focused on breastfeeding/complementary feeding, and the diet diversity of the children was also assessed. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the perceptions of mothers/caregivers of children between 12 and 59 months of age about breastfeeding/complementary feeding practices, and the diet diversity of the children was measured. Additionally, predictors associated with these perceptions were evaluated through regression analysis.
resultsIn the present study, 188 (62.5%) and 179 (59.5%) of the participants had good perceptions of breastfeeding practices and complementary feeding practices, respectively. This binomial regression revealed that subjects with unstable occupations (adjusted OR=2.24, 95% CI 1.25 to 4.01), schooling (7.71, 95% CI 2.73 to 8.9) and higher education (38.32, 95% CI 4.63 to 316.85) had increased chances of having good perceptions of breastfeeding practices. Subjects with unstable occupations (0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.85), stable occupations (0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.51), schooling (0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.74), higher education (0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.50) and increased birth weights (2.54, 95% CI 1.35 to 4.78) had increased chances of having good perceptions of complementary feeding practices (p<0.05). This study revealed that 86.4% of the children had adequate diet diversity.
conclusionThe study revealed that most caregivers, particularly mothers, possess a strong understanding of breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices, with education and occupation exerting a notable influence. However, there is a crucial necessity to translate this knowledge into practical applications to effectively obtain feeding indicators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.