4.4 Article

Complementary feeding practices: Current global and regional estimates

期刊

MATERNAL AND CHILD NUTRITION
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mcn.12505

关键词

animal source foods; complementary feeding; complementary foods; dietary diversity; infant and young child feeding; introduction to solid; semisolid or soft foods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insufficient quantities and inadequate quality of complementary foods, together with poor feeding practices, pose a threat to children's health and nutrition. Interventions to improve complementary feeding are critical to reduce all forms of malnutrition, and access to data to ascertain the status of complementary feeding practices is essential for efforts to improve feeding behaviours. However, sufficient data to generate estimates for the core indicators covering the complementary feeding period only became available recently. The current situation of complementary feeding at the global and regional level is reported here using data contained within the UNICEF global database. Global rates of continued breastfeeding drop from 74.0% at 1year of age to 46.3% at 2years of age. Nearly a third of infants 4-5months old are already fed solid foods, whereas nearly 20% of 10-11months old had not consumed solid foods during the day prior to their survey. Of particular concern is the low rate (28.2%) of children 6-23months receiving at least a minimally diverse diet. Although rates for all indicators vary by background characteristics, feeding behaviours are suboptimal even in richest households, suggesting that cultural factors and poor knowledge regarding an adequate diet for young children are important to address. In summary, far too few children are benefitting from minimum complementary feeding practices. Efforts are needed not only to improve children's diets for their survival, growth, and development but also for governments to report on progress against global infant and young child feeding indicators on a regular basis.

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