Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39614198›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Are boys more vulnerable to stunting? Examining risk factors, differential sensitivity, and measurement issues in Zambian infants and young children.

Amanda L Thompson, Mathews Onyango, Patricia Sakala, John Manda, Edna Berhane, Mary Pat Selvaggio, Agnes Aongola, Stephanie L Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

8 authors.

Amanda L ThompsonDepartment of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. althomps@email.unc.edu.
Mathews OnyangoScaling Up Nutrition Learning and Evaluation, Khulisa Management Services, Lusaka, Zambia.
Patricia SakalaScaling Up Nutrition Learning and Evaluation, Khulisa Management Services, Lusaka, Zambia.
John MandaScaling Up Nutrition Learning and Evaluation, Khulisa Management Services, Lusaka, Zambia.
Edna BerhaneKhulisa Management Services, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Mary Pat SelvaggioKhulisa Management Services, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Agnes AongolaMinistry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Stephanie L MartinDepartment of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStunting remains a considerable public health problem globally, and sex differences in prevalence have been documented. While many risk factors for stunting have been identified, few studies examine how these factors may contribute to sex differences. We test whether: (1) boys and girls are differentially exposed to stunting risk factors, (2) boys and girls respond differently to similar exposures, and (3) these associations are sensitive to the growth measures used.

methodsData comes from 7486 Zambian infants, aged 0-23 months, participating in the SUN (Scaling Up Nutrition) 2.0 Program baseline survey. Surveys and dietary recalls were collected from primary caregivers, and anthropometry was collected for caregivers and children. Stunting was defined as height-for-age z-score (HAZ) <-2. Descriptive statistics and adjusted multilevel logistic regression models controlling for age and province were used to identify sex differences in exposures and risk factors for stunting, respectively. Interaction terms between exposure and infant sex were added to test for sex differences in response. Sensitivity testing with alternate measures of infant size, including height-for-age difference (HAD), was conducted.

resultsBoys were more likely to be stunted than girls (34.5% vs. 25.7%, respectively). Numerous maternal, care giving, diet, and household characteristics were associated with the risk of stunting, but few sex differences were seen in exposure to these factors. Only one risk factor-maternal marital status-showed evidence of moderation by sex at the p < 0.05 level, while a limited number of risk factors did so at the p < 0.10 level. At all ages, boys were longer than girls, and there were no sex-specific differences in the patterns of HAZ or HAD with age. Results were robust to alternate specifications.

conclusionsOur results show that Zambian boys have lower mean HAZ scores than girls and a greater prevalence of stunting throughout the first two years We do not find strong evidence that infant feeding practices, environmental exposures, or care giving differ consistently between boys and girls or that boys and girls respond differently to these exposures. Our results instead indicate that further investigation of prenatal factors and/or measurement issues is needed.

Indexed as

Growth DisordersFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePrevalenceRisk FactorsSex FactorsZambiaGrowth standardsInfant and young child feedingSex differenceStuntingZambia

Identifiers

PMID39614198
PMCPMC11607808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.