ArticlePublic health nutrition2024
Estimating minimum dietary diversity for children aged 6-23 months: a comparison of agreement and cost of two recall methods in Cambodia and Zambia.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Diet Quality Questionnaire (DQQ) Is a Straightforward Data Collection Tool for Assessing Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W).Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
- Progress in Improving Low-Cost Measurement of Feeding Behaviors and Diets.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
- Comparison of an Open versus List-Based Dietary Recall Method to Assess Unhealthy Feeding Practices among Infants and Young Children.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
- You Say Potato, I Say Vegetable; You Say Tomato, I Say Fruit: Cognitive Validity of Food Group-Based Dietary Recall Questions.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
- Adaptation of the Diet Quality Questionnaire as a Global Public Good for Use in 140 Countries.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the agreement and cost of two recall methods for estimating children's minimum dietary diversity (MDD).
designWe assessed child's dietary intake on two consecutive days: an observation on day one, followed by two recall methods (list-based recall and multiple-pass recall) administered in random order by different enumerators at two different times on day two. We compared the estimated MDD prevalence using survey-weighted linear probability models following a two one-sided test equivalence testing approach. We also estimated the cost-effectiveness of the two methods.
settingCambodia (Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, Battambang, and Pursat provinces) and Zambia (Chipata, Katete, Lundazi, Nyimba, and Petauke districts).
participantsChildren aged 6-23 months: 636 in Cambodia and 608 in Zambia.
resultsMDD estimations from both recall methods were equivalent to the observation in Cambodia but not in Zambia. Both methods were equivalent to the observation in capturing most food groups. Both methods were highly sensitive although the multiple-pass method accurately classified a higher proportion of children meeting MDD than the list-based method in both countries. Both methods were highly specific in Cambodia but moderately so in Zambia. Cost-effectiveness was better for the list-based recall method in both countries.
conclusionThe two recall methods estimated MDD and most other infant and young child feeding indicators equivalently in Cambodia but not in Zambia, compared to the observation. The list-based method produced slightly more accurate estimates of MDD at the population level, took less time to administer and was less costly to implement.
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.