↓ Skip to main content

Monthly food insecurity assessment in rural mkushi district, Zambia: a longitudinal analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Monthly food insecurity assessment in rural mkushi district, Zambia: a longitudinal analysis
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4176-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muzi Na, Bess L. Caswell, Sameera A. Talegawkar, Amanda Palmer

Abstract

Perception-based scales are widely used for household food insecurity (HFI) assessment but were only recently added in national surveys. The frequency of assessments needed to characterize dynamics in HFI over time is largely unknown. The study aims to examine longitudinal changes in monthly reported HFI at both population- and household-level. A total of 157 households in rural Mkushi District whose children were enrolled in the non-intervened arm of an efficacy trial of biofortified maize were included in the analysis. HFI was assessed by a validated 8-item perception-based Likert scale on a monthly basis from October 2012 to March 2013 (6 visits), characterizing mostly the lean season. An HFI index was created by summing scores over the Likert scale, with a possible range of 0-32. The Wilcoxon matched signed-ranks test was used to compare distribution of HFI index between visits. A random effect model was fit to quantify the sources of variance in indices at household level. The median [IQR] HFI index was 4.5 [2, 8], 5 [1, 8], 4 [1, 7], 4 [1, 6], 3 [1, 7] and 4 [1, 6] at the six monthly visits, respectively. HFI index was significantly higher in visit 1 and 2 than visit 3-6 and on average the index decreased by 0.25 points per visit. Within- and between-household variance in the index were 10.6 and 8.8, respectively. The small change in mean monthly HFI index over a single lean season indicated that a seasonal HFI measure may be sufficient for monitoring purposes at population level. Yet, higher variation within households suggests that repeated assessments may be required to avoid risk of misclassification at household level and to target households with the greatest risk of food insecurity.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 16 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 17 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,418,183
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,978
of 14,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,962
of 308,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#168
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.