ArticleBMC nutrition2023
Child stunting prevalence determination at sector level in Rwanda using small area estimation.
Article in BMC nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of maternal knowledge of causes and consequences of stunting on infant and young child feeding practices in Rwanda.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Exploring the multifactorial predictors of stunting in children under five: A systematic review of the literature, 2015-2024.Journal of public health research · 2025Review
- Women's exposure to intimate partner violence and its association with child stunting: findings from a population-based study in rural Rwanda.Global health action · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStunting among children under 5 years of age remains a worldwide concern, with 148.1 million (22.3%) stunted in 2022. The recent 2019/2020 Rwanda Demographic Health Survey (RDHS) revealed that the prevalence of stunting in Rwanda among under five children was 33.5%. In Rwanda, there is no sufficient evidence on stunting status to guide prioritized interventions at the sector level, the lowest administrative unit for implementing development initiatives. This study aimed to provide reliable estimates of stunting prevalence in Rwanda at the sector level.
methodsIn this article, Small Area Estimation (SAE) techniques were used to provide sector level estimates of stunting prevalence in children under five in Rwanda. By plugging in relevant significant covariates in the generalized linear mixed model, model-based estimates are produced for all sectors with their corresponding Mean Square Error (MSE).
resultsThe findings showed that, overall, 40 out of 416 sectors had met the national target of having a stunting rate less than or equal to 19%, while 194 sectors were far from meeting this target, having a stunting rate higher than the national prevalence of 33.5% in the year 2020. The majority of the sectors with stunting prevalence that were higher than the national average of 33.5% were found in the Northern Province with 68 sectors out of 89 and in Western Province with 64 sectors out of 96. In contrast, the prevalence of stunting was lower in the City of Kigali where 14 out of 35 sectors had a stunting rate between 0 and 19%, and all sectors were below the national average. This study showed a substantial connection between stunting and factors such as household size, place of residence, the gender of the household head, and access to improved toilet facilities and clean water.
conclusionThe results of this study may guide and support informed policy decisions and promote localised and targeted interventions in Rwanda's most severely affected sectors with a high stunting prevalence in Rwanda.
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.