4.4 Article

Poor dietary diversity and low nutrient density of the complementary diet for 6-to 24-month-old children in urban and rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

期刊

MATERNAL AND CHILD NUTRITION
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 528-545

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mcn.12146

关键词

breastfeeding; infant feeding; complementary foods; micronutrients; food and nutrient intake; infant formula

资金

  1. South African Sugar Association [223]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infants and toddlers have high nutritional requirements relative to body size but consume small amounts of food and therefore need nutrient-dense complementary foods. A cross-sectional study included children aged 6-24 months, stratified in three age categories (6-11 months, 12-17 months and 18-24 months) and randomly selected from an urban (n = 158) and a rural (n = 158) area, both of low socio-economic status, in the KwaZulu-Natal Province of South Africa. Dietary diversity and nutrient density of the complementary diet (excluding breast milk and formula milk) based on a repeated 24-h dietary recall was assessed. For breastfeeding children, nutrient density of the complementary diet was adequate for protein, vitamin A and vitamin C; and inadequate for 100% of children for zinc, for > 80% of children for calcium, iron and niacin; and between 60% and 80% of children for vitamin B6 and riboflavin. Urban/rural differences in density for animal and plant protein, cholesterol and fibre occurred in 18-24-month-old children. Fewer than 25% of children consumed >= 4 food groups, with no urban/rural differences. Higher dietary diversity was associated with higher nutrient density for protein and several of the micronutrients including calcium, iron and zinc. The poor nutrient density for key micronutrients can probably be ascribed to lack of dietary variety, and little impact of mandatory fortification of maize meal/wheat flour on infants/toddlers' diet. Targeted strategies are needed to enable mothers to feed their children a more varied diet.

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

4.4
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