4.6 Article

Only Children of the Head of Household Benefit from Increased Household Food Diversity in Northern Ghana

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 138, 期 11, 页码 2258-2263

出版社

AMER SOC NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.3945/jn.108.092437

关键词

-

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. International Food Policy Research Institute (Washington, DC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In many societies, foods are preferentially channeled to certain members of the household. We studied whether being the child of a powerful household member (head of household or first wife in a polygynous family) was associated with greater child stature in Northern Ghana and how this association varied with differences in household food availability. We used a sample of 464 children between 9 and 36 mo of age in extended households In rural Northern Ghana. Child stature was regressed on household food availability, the status of the child's father (head of household or other male), the status of the child's mother (marital order in a polygynous marriage), and the interaction terms between household food availability and parental status. The models were controlled for child age, sex, maternal height, parity, household size, and potential intra-comm unity clustering. Household dietary diversity was associated with child stature (P < 0.05), but this association was limited to children of the head of household. For children of other males, there was no quantifiable association between household dietary diversity and child stature. Children Of monogamous mothers were taller than children of second wives (P < 0.05). Our findings show that studies of intra-household allocation need to investigate beyond gender differences. Other Structural household factors need to be considered in designing interventions, because they affect impact and even lead to increased intra-household inequality. Our results are relevant for Northern Ghana and as well as for similar settings elsewhere in the world. J. Nutr. 138: 2258-2263, 2008.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据