DIETARY DIVERSITY SCORE AND NUTRIENT ADEQUACY AMONG ADULTS IN IKWUANO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF ABIA STATE

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00008195

No of Pages: 79

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

$12

ABSTRACT


Nutritional adequacy is the key element for human growth and development. Inadequate or excess intake of the nutrients may result to poor nutritional status. However, Dietary diversity has been considered a potential 'proxy' indicator to reflect nutrient intake adequacy.  This study aimed at assessing the Dietary Diversity and Nutrient Adequacy among adults in Rural Ikwuano Local Government of Abia State; calculate nutrient adequacy of the participants, determine the dietary diversity score and the relationship between dietary diversity score and nutrient adequacy.  The respondents were selected using a simple random sampling technique involving 439 adults in Amawom and Amaoba, ikwuano L.G.A. The anthropometric measurements of the respondents were taken using standard equipment. A 24-hour dietary recall questionnaire was used to assess the food intake of the respondents, which was converted into nutrient intake using Nutri-survey software. Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) was created using a 16-food group model. Nutrient intake was evaluated using Nutrient Adequacy Ratio (NAR). Mean adequacy ratio (MAR) was calculated as an indicator of nutrient intake adequacy. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used for analysis of the data collected. More than half (56.4%) of the respondents had normal body weight, 4% were underweight, 23.8% were overweight and 15.9% were obese. The diet of the respondents consisted of food items mainly from food groups such as cereals, white roots and tubers, vitamin A-rich vegetables, spices, condiments and beverages. Fruits and foods from milk and milk products were the least consumed. The mean DDS was 9.11±1.79, 97.4% of the respondents had high DDS, 1.9% had medium DDS and 0.7% had low DDS. The MAR was lower in the female (64.39) than male (66.99). Zinc had an average NAR of at least 100%. Carbohydrate had an average NAR greater than 90%. The result revealed that protein and carbohydrate intakes were significantly higher in female participants (83.70± 35.92) and (91.82 ± 40.31) respectively than male participants (76.29 ± 34.16) and (82.66 ± 40.62) respectively. This study revealed that there was no significant relationship between nutrient adequacy ratio and dietary diversity score and no significant relationship between mean adequacy ratio and dietary diversity score.





TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE                                                                                                              i

CERTIFICATION                                                                                                      ii

DEDICATION                                                                                                            iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT                                                                                          iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                           v

LIST OF TABLES                                                                                                      viii

ABSTRACT                                                                                                               x

 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.0       Background Of The Study                                                                              1

I.1            Statement Of Problem                                                                                    4

I.2            Objective Of The Study                                                                                  6

1.2.1    General objectives                                                                                          6

1.2.2    Specific objectives                                                                                         6

I.3              Significance Of The Study                                                                           7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW                                                               8

2.1       Dietary Diversity                                                                                            8

2.1.1   Measurement of dietary diversity                                                                   8

2.1.2   Relevance of dietary diversity                                                                        9

2.1.3    Socio-demographic determinants of dietary diversity                                   10

2.1.4    FAO’s dietary diversity guidelines                                                                14

2.1.5    Dietary assessment methods                                                                           15

2.2       Nutrient Adequacy Assessment                                                                      17

2.3       Food Choice                                                                                                   21

2.3.1    Sensory appeal and food preferences                                                             21

2.3.2    Price                                                                                                                21

2.3.3    Health and wellbeing                                                                                      22

2.3.4    Weight control                                                                                                22

2.3.5.   Nutrition knowledge                                                                                       22

2.3.6    Life stage                                                                                                        23

2.3.7    Culture and religious beliefs                                                                          23

2.3.8    Lifestyle choices                                                                                             24

2.3.9.   Habits, routines and past experiences                                                            25

2.3.10 Hunger and appetite                                                                                       25

2.3.11. Approaches to understanding food choice                                                     25

2.4       Adults                                                                                                             28

2.4.1    Nutrient needs of adults                                                                                  29

2.5.      Dietary Assessment                                                                                        31

2.5.1.   Nutritional status assessment of adults                                                           31                                                                                     

2.5.2    Anthropometry                                                                                               31

2.5.3    Biochemical assessment                                                                                 32

2.5.4 Clinical assessment                                                                                            32


CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1       Study Design                                                                                                  33

3.2       Area Of Study                                                                                                 33

3.3       Population Of Study                                                                                       33

3.4       Sampling And Sampling Techniques                                                             34

3.4.1    Sample Size                                                                                                    34

3.4      Sampling Procedure                                                                                        35

3.5       Preliminary Activities                                                                                    35

3.5.1    Preliminary Visits                                                                                           35

3.5.2    Training Of Research Assistants                                                                    35

3.5.3    Ethical Approval                                                                                             36

3.6       Data Collection                                                                                               36

3.6.1    Questionnaire Administration                                                                        36

3.6.2    Anthropometric Measurements                                                                      36

3.6.3    Dietary Measurement                                                                                     38

3.7       Data Analysis                                                                                                  41

3.8       Statistiscal Analysis                                                                                        42

  

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1       Socio-Demographic Characteristics                                                               44

4.2.1    Anthropometric characteristics of the participants                                        46

4.3       Dietary Diversity Scores Of Participants                                                       48

4.3b     Dietary diversity score of the respondents                                                     50

4.3c:    Dietary diversity score categorization of participants                                    51

4.4       Nutrient Adequacy Ratio Of Participants                                                      53

4.5       Relationship Between Nutrient Adequacy Ratio (Nar), Mean Adequacy

Ratio (Mar) And Dietary Diversity Score (DSS)                                           55


CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion                                                                                                            58

 

5.2 Recommendation                                                                                                 58

 

REFERENCES

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

Table 3.1: Body Mass Index Classification                                                               42

Table 3.2:  Classification of Waist to Hip Ratio                                                        42

Table 4.1: Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants                              45

Table 4.2: Anthropometric indices of the participants                                               47

Table 4.3a: Frequency consumption of food groups among the respondents             49

Table 4.3b: Dietary diversity score of the respondents                                              51

Table 4.3c: Dietary diversity score categorization of participants                             52

Table 4.4: Mean adequacy ratio (MAR), nutrient adequacy ratio (NAR), and

dietary diversity score (DDS) of participants                                                54

Table4.5: Relationship Between Nutrient Adequacy Ratio (Nar), Mean Adequacy Ratio

 (Mar) And Dietary Diversity Score (DSS)                                                                            56

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Dietary Diversity is defined as the number of individual food items or food groups consumed over a given period (Ruel, 2003). It can be measured at the household or individual level through use of a questionnaire. Most often it is measured by counting the number of food groups rather than food items consumed. The type and number of food groups included in the questionnaire and subsequent analysis may vary, depending on the intended purpose and level of measurement. At the household level, dietary diversity is usually considered as a measure of access to food, (e.g. of households’ capacity to access costly food groups), while at individual level it reflects dietary quality, mainly micronutrient adequacy of the diet. The reference period can vary but is most often the previous day or week (Food and Agriculture Organization FAO, 2011; World Food Programme WFP, 2009).

As no single food contains all necessary nutrients, diversity in dietary sources is needed to ensure a balanced and healthy diet (Randall et al., 1985). Consequently, dietary diversity score (DDS) which quantifies the number of food groups in a diet consumed over a reference period emerged as a potential indicator of nutritional adequacy (FAO, 2007). It is well documented in developed countries that dietary diversity at different types of sources is strongly associated with nutrient adequacy and is thus an essential element of diet quality (Randall et al., 1985).

Nutritional adequacy is defined as the sufficient intake of essential nutrients, needed to fulfill nutritional requirements for optimal health. According to the criterion of adequacy defined, the requirement for a given nutrient may be at a lower or higher intake amount. The criteria that are generally used to define adequacy of intake are: the prevention of deficiency diseases, the prevention of chronic diseases or the reduction of risk for diet associated diseases, subclinical nutritional health conditions identified by specific biochemical or functional measures, or requirements to maintain physiological balance (Dhonukshe-Rutten et al., 2013).

In developing countries where the main concern is dietary deficit, nutrient adequacy alone is often used to refer to dietary quality. However, quantifying intake of nutrients is often expensive, time consuming and associated with methodological challenges in developing countries (Ruel, 2002).

Although dietary diversity and nutrient adequacy are related, they do not reflect the exact same constructs. When using the simple content of food groups as indicator of more complex nutrient adequacy, it is important to be aware of the similarities and differences between the two (Torheim, 2004)

Dietary diversity score is differentiated as household dietary diversity score (HDDS) and individual dietary diversity score (IDDS), including child diversity score (CDDS) and women dietary score (WDDS) (FANTA, 2006). Household dietary diversity score is a proxy measure of the household access to food, or the proxy measure of the socio-economic level of the household, whereas the individual dietary diversity score is a proxy measure of the nutritional quality of the individual’s diets, particularly that of micronutrient adequacy of a diet (Vicchia et al., 2001). Two to different arrays food groups formed the basis for quantifying DDS as indicator of nutritional quality, most often 12 food groups are considered for household dietary diversity (HDDS) and 8 or 9 food groups for individual dietary diversity (IDDS) (Kennedy et al., 2007).

Dietary diversity (DD) has been universally identified as a key element of high-quality diets. As dietary factors are associated with increased risk of chronic diseases and undernutrition, local and international dietary guidelines recommend to improve the diversity of the diet. Macro and micro nutrient deficiencies are public health concerns in most developing counties including Sri Lanka, due to monotonous, cereal-based diet that lacks diversity (Ruel, 2003). Furthermore, diverse diet reflects the nutrient adequacy of the diet (Mirmiran et al., 2006). Several studies showed that the overall nutritional quality of the diet is improved with diverse diet (Hatley et al., 1998; Ogle et al., 2001; Torheim et al, 2003). Therefore, diversity in the diet is important to meet the requirements for energy and other essential nutrients especially for those who are in the risk of nutrition deficiencies (Mowe et al., 1994).

 Diverse diets have been shown to protect against chronic diseases such as cancers (McCullough et al., 2002), as well as being associated with prolonged longevity and improved health status (Kant et al., 1995). Evidence suggests that nutrient intake is influenced by many socio demographic attributes.

Income determines nutrition and also provide an index of the purchasing capacity of adults. In a report stated by World Bank in 1980 the serious and extensive nutritional deficiencies that exist in almost all of these countries are “largely a reflection of poverty, people do not have enough income for food”(World Bank, 1980)With the improvement of household income, absolute expenditure on food is likely to go up, as is the calorie and protein intake of the household, including adults (Gobalan et al., 2012).

  According to a study done by Galobardes et al. in Geneva showed that lower education contributed to determining differences in dietary habits and dietary intake (Galobardes et al., 2001).


1.1  STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

According to Ruel (2002), lack of dietary diversity is a challenge for rural and urban communities in developing countries. Household income, educational level and employment status affects dietary pattern of adults in Nigeria especially the rural area, thereby affecting the nutrient adequacy of their diet due to consumption of non-diversified diet.

It has been clearly stated that a non-diversified diet can have negative consequences on individuals’ health, well-being and development, mainly by reducing physical capacities and resistance to infection, but also by impairing cognitive development, reproductive and even social capacities (Underwood, 1998).

Dietary Diversity of Nigerian diet was evaluated in six states representing the three Agro- ecological zones, rural and urban sectors of Nigeria. 1,472 women with a mean age (SD) of 27.9(6.2) years participated in this study. Majority (97.1%) were married, occupation included traders (21.5%), civil servants (23.9%), artisans (19.1%) and farmers (15.4%). Overall, mean dietary diversity score (DDS) was 5.81 (1.4). This varied from 6.61 in Akwa-Ibom state to 4.98 in Kaduna state. Overall 83% of the participants had average/medium DDS (5-9) while 16.5% had low (1-4) DDS. These varied significantly among the states. Low DDS (1-4) was 25% and 33% in the states in the dry Savanna zone but 12.8% and 10% in the states in moist Savanna zone and 6.4 and 6.2 in humid forest. These differences are significant (p<0.05). In conclusion dietary diversity is poor in Nigeria and efforts to improve nutritional status must address the issue of dietary diversity (Ajani, 2010).

Practice of non-diversified diet can lead to nutritional deficiency. Adults suffering from nutritional deficiency may feel tired and find it difficult to work hard and may be prone to poor health. This may make it difficult for them to provide for their families. Poor diversification of diets in the household level and individuals poses a threat to nutritional status of individuals which can cause very chronic diseases and mortality rate increase. Similarly, adults who are very overweight are more likely to have certain kinds of serious health problems.

Therefore, problems of insufficient intake of vitamins and minerals such as vitamin A, B6, C, Thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, calcium, iron and zinc as well as excessive consumption of calories and fat especially in rural areas as may be influenced by Poverty, ignorance, food insecurity, socio demographic characteristics etc prompted and motivated this research study. Therefore, it was necessary to investigate their dietary diversity and nutrient adequacy relating to their socio-demographic characteristics.

I.2   OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

1.2.1 General objectives:

This work examines the relationship between dietary diversity score (number of food items and food groups consumed), nutrient adequacy (the mean ratio of intake to recommended intake) and socio-demographic parameters of adults in a rural Ikwuano adult population.

1.2.2 Specific objectives:

The specific objectives include to:

                           I.         determine the socio-economic parameters among Ikwuano adult population.

                         II.          determine their dietary diversity score.

                       III.          determine their nutritional adequacy.

                       IV.           determine the relationship between dietary diversity score, nutrient adequacy and socio-economic parameters of the respondent.


I.6   SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research will help to motivate educators, as well as other nutritionist educating families, adults etc on the benefits of dietary diversity in the households. The success of this study will create awareness and provide appropriate and adequate knowledge on proper dietary practice. It will further provide convincing information to the government for use in planning programmed and policies that will improve the nutritional adequacy as well as nutritional status of adults in general.

This study can be used to make policies by the government regarding fortification of food products in order to meet the nutrient needs of adults.

In the education sector food based dietary guidelines can be used to change the eating pattern of adults since dietary pattern can be passed from adults in households to children.

 

Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.


To Review


To Comment