Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34103022›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

The role of chicken management practices in children's exposure to environmental contamination: a mixed-methods analysis.

Simone Passarelli, Ramya Ambikapathi, Nilupa S Gunaratna, Isabel Madzorera, Chelsey R Canavan, Ramadhani Abdallah Noor, Dagmawit Tewahido, Yemane Berhane, Simbarashe Sibanda, Lindiwe Majele Sibanda and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03152227 (Evaluation of Integrated Agriculture and Nutrition Sensitive Interventions for the African Chicken Genetic Gains), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03152227 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of Integrated Agriculture and Nutrition Sensitive Interventions for the African Chicken Genetic Gains (ACGG) Program in Ethiopia

TypeinterventionalSponsorHarvard School of Public Health (HSPH)Ran2016 to 2018Enrolled2,117ConditionsDietary Modification, Health BehaviorArmsACGG, BCC
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Simone PassarelliDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. spassarelli@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1044-3393
Ramya AmbikapathiDepartment of Public Health, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.
Nilupa S GunaratnaDepartment of Public Health, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.
Isabel MadzoreraDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Chelsey R CanavanDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Ramadhani Abdallah NoorDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Dagmawit TewahidoAddis Continental Institute of Public Health, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Yemane BerhaneAddis Continental Institute of Public Health, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Simbarashe SibandaFood, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network, Pretoria, South Africa.
Lindiwe Majele SibandaFood, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network, Pretoria, South Africa.
Tshilidzi MadzivhandilaFood, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network, Pretoria, South Africa.
Bertha L M MunthaliFood, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network, Pretoria, South Africa.
Margaret McConnellDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Christopher SudfeldDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Kirsten DavisonBoston College, School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, USA.
Wafaie FawziDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1032718
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHousehold chicken production presents an opportunity to promote child nutrition, but the benefits might be offset by increased environmental contamination. Using household surveys, direct observations, and in-depth interviews with woman caregivers, we sought to describe the relationship between chicken management practices and household exposure to environmental contamination, and assess barriers to adopting improved husbandry practices.

methodsFirst, we analyzed baseline data from 973 households raising chickens in the two interventions arms from the Agriculture-to-Nutrition (ATONU) study in Ethiopia to assess the relationship between animal management practices and environmental exposures. Second, we conducted six-hour direct observations of children's environmental exposures in 18 households. Among these households, we analyzed in-depth interviews with child caregivers.

resultsQuantitative analyses showed that households raised approximately 11 chickens, had animal feces visible on the property 67% of the time, and children's hands were visibly dirty 38% of the time. Households with more chickens had lower exposure to animal feces. Having a chicken coop increased the risk of observing animal feces on the property by 30%, but among those with a coop, having an enclosed coop reduced that risk by 83%. Coops that were enclosed, had fencing, and were located further from homes were associated with a reduced risk of observing animal feces and an increased likelihood of children having clean hands. Direct observations showed that chicken coops were often poorly designed or not used. On average, 3 to 5 chickens were inside homes at a time, and livestock and domestic animals were frequently inside of houses and interacting with young children. In-depth interviews revealed that protection of animals, maintenance of household cleanliness and health, type of chicken (local versus improved) and resource constraints influenced management decisions.

conclusionsImprovements in chicken management practices could mitigate the exposure of household members to environmental contamination. Our findings highlight the need for training and resources to promote safe animal husbandry practices and optimal child health in nutrition-sensitive livestock projects.

trial registrationClinical trials number: NCT03152227 ; Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on May 12, 2012.

Indexed as

ChickensChild Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimal HusbandryAnimalsChildChild, PreschoolEthiopiaFemaleHumansNutritional StatusAgricultureChild healthEthiopiaNutritionWater, sanitation, and hygiene

Identifiers

PMID34103022
PMCPMC8188703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.