ArticlePeerJ2021
Estimating the national and regional prevalence of drinking or eating more than usual during childhood diarrhea in Malawi using the bivariate sample selection copula regression.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEstimation of prevalence of feeding practices during diarrhea using conventional imputation methods may be biased as these methods apply to observed factors and in this study, feeding practice status was unobserved for those without diarrhea. The study aimed at re-estimating the prevalence of feeding practices using the bivariate sample selection model.
methodsThe study used 2015-2016 Malawi demographic health survey (MDHS) data which had 16,246 children records who had diarrhea or not. A bivariate Joe copula regression model with 90 degrees rotation was fitted to either drinking or eating more, with diarrhea as a sample selection outcome in the bivariate models. The prevalence of drinking more than usual and prevalence of eating more than usual were then estimated based on the fitted bivariate model. These prevalences were then compared to the prevalences estimated using the conventional imputation method.
resultsThere was a substantial increase in the re-estimated national prevalence of drinking more fluids (40.0%, 95% CI [31.7-50.5]) or prevalence of eating more food (20.46%, 95% CI [9.87-38.55]) using the bivariate model as compared to the prevalences estimated by the conventional imputation method, that is, (28.9%, 95% CI [27.0-30.7]) and (13.1%, 95% CI [12.0-15.0]) respectively. The maps of the regional prevalences showed similar results where the prevalences estimated by the bivariate model were relatively higher than those estimated by the standard imputation method. The presence of diarrhea was somehow weakly negatively correlated with either drinking more fluids or eating more food.
conclusionThe estimation of prevalence of drinking more fluids or eating more food during diarrhea should use bivariate modelling to model sample selection variable so as to minimize bias. The observed negative correlation between diarrhea presence and feeding practices implies that mothers should be encouraged to let their children drink more fluids or eat more food during diarrhea episode to avoid dehydration and malnutrition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.