4.3 Article

Socioeconomic status, anthropometric status, and psychomotor development of Kenyan children from resource-limited settings: A path-analytic study

Journal

EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Volume 84, Issue 9, Pages 613-621

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2008.02.003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIMH Fogarty R21award [MH72597-02]
  2. Wellcome Trust, UK [070114]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Sub-optimal physical growth has been suggested as a key pathway between the effect of environmental risk and developmental outcome. Aim: To determine if anthropometric status mediates the relation between socioeconomic status and psychomotor development of young children in resource-limited settings. Study design: A cross-sectional study design was used. Subjects: A total of 204 (105 girls) children from two resource-limited communities in the Coast Province, Kenya. The mean age of these children was 29 months (SD=3.43; range: 24-35 months). Outcome measure: Psychomotor functioning was assessed using a locally developed and validated measure, the Kitifi Developmental Inventory. Results: A significant association was found between anthropometric status (as measured by weight-for-age, height-for-age, mid-upper arm circumference, and head circumference) and psychomotor functioning and also between socioeconomic status and anthropometric status; no direct effects were found between socioeconomic status and developmental outcome. The models showed that weight, height and to a lesser extent mid-upper arm circumference mediate the relation between socioeconomic status and developmental outcome, while head circumference did not show the same effect. Conclusion: Among children under 3 years living in poverty, anthropometric status shows a clear association with psychomotor development while socioeconomic status may only have an indirect association. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available