↓ Skip to main content

Magnitude of undernutrition in children aged 2 to 4 years using CIAF and conventional indices in the slums of Mumbai city

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Magnitude of undernutrition in children aged 2 to 4 years using CIAF and conventional indices in the slums of Mumbai city
Published in
Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s41043-015-0017-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mitravinda S. Savanur, Padmini S. Ghugre

Abstract

Conventional indicators - weight-for-age, height-for-age, weight-for-height and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) reflect different facets of the nutritional status. Weight-for-age is the most commonly used indicator. When used individually or in combination, conventional indices fail to depict the overall magnitude of undernutrition in the population. Composite Index of Anthropometric Failure (CIAF) is an alternative classification system which attempts to fill this lacuna. Thus, we undertook this study with the objective to compare the prevalence of undernutrition using CIAF and the conventional indices. We included 634 children aged between 2 to 4 years from anganwadis located in three areas of Mumbai. Weight, height and MUAC measurements were taken. Z scores were computed for weight-for-age (WAZ), height-for-age (HAZ) and weight-for-height (WHZ) using WHO Anthro software. Children were classified as per the conventional indices and CIAF. The prevalence of underweight, stunting and wasting was 35.7 %, 33.8 % and 18.5 % respectively. None of the children had MUAC < 11.5 cm. About 1 % of the children were moderately wasted according to MUAC. As per CIAF, 47.8 % children were undernourished. According to CIAF, one-third of the undernourished children had single anthropometric failure while half of them had dual failure and 17.1 % had multiple failures. When compared with the conventional indices, CIAF could recognize 12.1 %, 14.0 %, 29.3 % and 46.7 % more undernourished children than WAZ, HAZ, WHZ and MUAC respectively. In conclusion, CIAF is seen to have many advantages over the conventional indices. CIAF is useful in assessing the overall magnitude of undernutrition and identifying children with multiple anthropometric failures. It also recognizes more undernourished children than all the conventional indices. Therefore, CIAF should be used more widely as a tool for nutritional assessment particularly in developing countries where the burden of undernutrition is high.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 43 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 18%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 49 38%
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 31 January 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition
#521
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,668
of 277,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. 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 277,324 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.