A Nutrition-Sensitive Agroecology Intervention in Rural Tanzania Increases Children's Dietary Diversity and Household Food Security But Does Not Change Child Anthropometry: Results from a Cluster-Randomized Trial

Marianne V Santoso, Rachel N Bezner Kerr, Neema Kassim, Haikael Martin, Elias Mtinda, Peter Njau, Kelvin Mtei, John Hoddinott, Sera L Young, Marianne V Santoso, Rachel N Bezner Kerr, Neema Kassim, Haikael Martin, Elias Mtinda, Peter Njau, Kelvin Mtei, John Hoddinott, Sera L Young

Abstract

Background: There are urgent calls for the transformation of agriculture and food systems to address human and planetary health issues. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture and agroecology promise interconnected solutions to these challenges, but evidence of their impact has been limited.

Objectives: In a cluster-randomized trial (NCT02761876), we examined whether a nutrition-sensitive agroecology intervention in rural Tanzania could improve children's dietary diversity. Secondary outcomes were food insecurity and child anthropometry. We also posited that such an intervention would improve sustainable agricultural practices (e.g., agrobiodiversity, intercropping), women's empowerment (e.g., participation in decision making, time use), and women's well-being (e.g., dietary diversity, depression).

Methods: Food-insecure smallholder farmers with children aged <1 y from 20 villages in Singida, Tanzania, were invited to participate. Villages were paired and publicly randomized; control villages received the intervention after 2 y. One man and 1 woman "mentor farmer" were elected from each intervention village to lead their peers in agroecological learning on topics including legume intensification, nutrition, and women's empowerment. Impact was estimated using longitudinal difference-in-differences fixed-effects regression analyses.

Results: A total of 591 households (intervention: n = 296; control: n = 295) were enrolled; 90.0% were retained to study end. After 2 growing seasons, the intervention improved children's dietary diversity score by 0.57 food groups (out of 7; P < 0.01), and the percentage of children achieving minimum dietary diversity (≥4 food groups) increased by 9.9 percentage points during the postharvest season. The intervention significantly reduced household food insecurity but had no significant impact on child anthropometry. The intervention also improved a range of sustainable agriculture, women's empowerment, and women's well-being outcomes.

Conclusions: The magnitude of the intervention's impacts was similar to or larger than that of other nutrition-sensitive interventions that provided more substantial inputs but were not agroecologically focused. These data suggest the untapped potential for nutrition-sensitive agroecological approaches to achieve human health while promoting sustainable agricultural practices.

Keywords: agrobiodiversity; agroecology; child diet; dietary diversity; food security; nutrition-sensitive agriculture; participatory interventions; smallholder farmers; sub-Saharan Africa; women's empowerment.

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Intention-to-treat impact of the Singida Nutrition and Agroecology Project intervention on children's diet, the primary study outcome (n = 591). (A) β coefficients and 95% CIs of the intervention impact on children's dietary diversity score (range: 0–7 food groups). At baseline, children ate (mean ± SD) 2.3 ± 1.1 and 1.8 ± 0.9 food groups during the postharvest and growing seasons, respectively. (B) β coefficients and 95% CIs of the impact on the proportion of children meeting minimum dietary diversity. At baseline, 14.5% and 4.2% of the children met the minimum acceptable diet during the postharvest and growing seasons, respectively. β coefficients were derived using linear regression for continuous outcomes and linear probability regression for binary outcomes, controlling for child age and household-level fixed effects; 95% CIs were calculated accounting for clustering at the village level using the wild bootstrap method. Full regression results are presented in Supplemental Table 2. The arrows indicate the direction of favorable outcome. pp, percentage points.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Intention-to-treat impact of the Singida Nutrition and Agroecology Project intervention on food security, a secondary study outcome (n = 591). (A) β coefficients and 95% CIs of the intervention impact on the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale score. At baseline, the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale score (mean ± SD) was 6.8 ± 5.7 and 12.4 ± 6.4 at the postharvest and growing seasons, respectively. (B) β coefficients and 95% CIs of the impact on the proportion of households experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity. At baseline, 71.4% and 86.8% of households experienced moderate or severe food insecurity during the postharvest and growing seasons, respectively. β coefficients were derived using linear regression for continuous outcomes and linear probability regression for binary outcomes, controlling for household-level fixed effects; 95% CIs were calculated accounting for clustering at the village level using the wild bootstrap method. Full regression results are presented in Supplemental Table 3. The arrows indicate the direction of favorable outcome. pp, percentage points.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Intention-to-treat impact of the Singida Nutrition and Agroecology Project intervention on child anthropometry, a secondary study outcome. (A and C) β coefficients and 95% CIs of the intervention impact on HAZ and WHZ, respectively. At baseline, children's HAZ (mean ± SD) was –1.4 ± 1.1, children's WHZ at postharvest seasons was –0.62 ± 1.04, and children's WHZ at growing seasons was –0.46 ± 1.01. (B and D) β coefficients and 95% CIs of the impact on the proportion of children who were stunted (B) and wasted (D). At baseline, 26.9% of children were stunted, 10.4% were wasted during the postharvest seasons, and 6.1% were wasted during the growing seasons. β coefficients were derived using linear regression for continuous outcomes and linear probability regression for binary outcomes, controlling for child age and household-level fixed effects; 95% CIs were calculated accounting for clustering at the village level using the wild bootstrap method. Full regression results are presented in Supplemental Tables 4a and 4b. The arrows indicate the direction of favorable outcome. HAZ, height-for-age z score; pp, percentage points; WHZ, weight-for-height z score.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Intention-to-treat impact estimates of the Singida Nutrition and Agroecology Project intervention on sustainable agriculture practices (n = 591). At baseline, the crop species richness (mean ± SD) was 1.8 ± 0.9 crops, 5.7% of households practiced intercropping, the number of sustainable practices to improve soil health was 0.39 ± 0.53, and the number of sustainable practices to improve pest management was 0.32 ± 0.53. β coefficients were derived using linear regression for continuous outcomes and linear probability regression for binary outcomes, controlling for household-level fixed effects; 95% CIs were calculated accounting for clustering at the village level using the wild bootstrap method. Full regression results are presented in Supplemental Table 5. The arrows indicate the direction of favorable outcome. pp, percentage points.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Intention-to-treat impact estimates of the Singida Nutrition and Agroecology Project intervention on women's empowerment (n = 591). At baseline, women's income allocation and agriculture decision-making power (mean ± SD) was 0.37 ± 0.26 and 0.36 ± 0.22, respectively; husbands helped with 2.1 ± 1.8 household chores in the past month; women spent 10.3 ± 3.2 h on household work in the previous 24 h; and the empowerment score according to A-WEAI was 0.46 ± 0.17. β coefficients were derived using linear regression for continuous outcomes and linear probability regression for binary outcomes, controlling for household-level fixed effects; 95% CIs were calculated accounting for clustering at the village level using the wild bootstrap method. Full regression results are presented in Supplemental Table 6. The arrows indicate the direction of favorable outcome. A-WEAI, Abbreviated Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Intention-to-treat impact estimates of the Singida Nutrition and Agroecology Project intervention on women's well-being (n = 591). At baseline, 14.7% women achieved minimum dietary diversity, 78.4% reported adequate social support, and 41.2% reported probable depression. β coefficients were derived using linear regression for continuous outcomes and linear probability regression for binary outcomes, controlling for household-level fixed effects; 95% CIs were calculated accounting for clustering at the village level using the wild bootstrap method. Full regression results are presented in Supplemental Table 7. The arrows indicate the direction of favorable outcome. pp, percentage points.

References

    1. FAO, International Fund for Agricultural Development, UNICEF, World Food Programme, WHO.. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020: transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. [Internet]. Rome (Italy): FAO; 2020. Available from: 10.4060/ca9692en.
    1. Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA, Caulfield LE, de Onis M, Ezzati M, Mathers C, Rivera J. Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. Lancet North Am Ed. 2008;371:243–60.
    1. Hoddinott J, Behrman JR, Maluccio JA, Melgar P, Quisumbing AR, Ramirez-Zea M, Stein AD, Yount KM, Martorell R. Adult consequences of growth failure in early childhood. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98:1170–8.
    1. Campbell B, Beare D, Bennett E, Hall-Spencer J, Ingram J, Jaramillo F, Ortiz R, Ramankutty N, Sayer J, Shindell D. Agriculture production as a major driver of the earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol Soc. 2017;22:8.
    1. Harris-Fry H, Nur H, Shankar B, Zanello G, Srinivasan C, Kadiyala S. The impact of gender equity in agriculture on nutritional status, diets, and household food security: a mixed-methods systematic review. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5:e002173.
    1. United Nations.. Sustainable development goals: the 17 goals. [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Aug 27]. Available from: .
    1. Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMAet al. . Pervasive human-driven decline of life on earth points to the need for transformative change. Science. 2019;366:eaax3100.
    1. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Secretariat.. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn (Germany): Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; 2019; [Internet]. [Cited 2020 July 20]. Available from: .
    1. Ruel MT, Alderman H; Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group. Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: how can they help to accelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition?. Lancet North Am Ed. 2013;382:536–51.
    1. Levtov R, Vlahovicova K, Barker G, Stiefvater E, Daimon L, Mulokozi AD. Momentum toward equality: results from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES) in Tanzania. [Internet]. Washington (DC): Promundo-US, Uzazi na Malezi Bora Tanzania, and Tanzania Commission for AIDS; 2018. [Cited 2018 Nov 27]. Available from: .
    1. Kabeer N. Reversed realities: gender hierarchies in development thought. New York: Verso; 1994.
    1. Carletto G, Ruel M, Winters P, Zezza A. Farm-level pathways to improved nutritional status: introduction to the special issue. J Dev Stud. 2015;51:945–57.
    1. Newton J, Verhart N, Bake A. Enhancing the effectiveness of agriculture-to-nutrition pathways: key insights from a gender analysis of impact evaluation design. [Internet]. Amsterdam (the Netherlands): Royal Tropical Institute, Food & Business Knowledge Platform; 2018. [Cited 2018 Dec 16]. Available from: .
    1. Sharma IK, Di Prima S, Essink D, Broerse JEW. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture: a systematic review of impact pathways to nutrition outcomes. Adv Nutr. 2021;12:251–75.
    1. Ponisio LC, M'Gonigle LK, Mace KC, Palomino J, de Valpine P, Kremen C. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2015;282:20141396.
    1. Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2009;29:503–15.
    1. High Level Panel of Experts.. Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. [Internet]. Rome (Italy): High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition for the UN Committee on World Food Security; 2019. Report no. 14. [Cited 2019 Dec 18]. Available from: .
    1. D'Annolfo R, Gemmill-Herren B, Graeub B, Garibaldi LA. A review of social and economic performance of agroecology. Int J Agric Sustain. 2017;15:632–44.
    1. Kremen C, Merenlender AM. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science. 2018;362:eaau6020.
    1. Méndez VE, Bacon CM, Cohen R. Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2013;37:3–18.
    1. Nelson R, Coe R. Transforming research and development practice to support agroecological intensification of smallholder farming. J Int Aff. 2014;67:107–30.
    1. Tomich TP, Brodt S, Ferris H, Galt R, Horwath WR, Kebreab E, Leveau JHJ, Liptzin D, Lubell M, Merel Pet al. . Agroecology: a review from a global-change perspective. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2011;36:193–222.
    1. Deaconu A, Mercille G, Batal M. The agroecological farmer's pathways from agriculture to nutrition: a practice-based case from Ecuador's highlands. Ecol Food Nutr. 2019;58:142–65.
    1. Bezner Kerr R, Chilanga E, Nyantakyi-Frimpong H, Luginaah I, Lupafya E. Integrated agriculture programs to address malnutrition in northern Malawi. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:1197.
    1. Bezner Kerr R, Berti PR, Shumba L. Effects of a participatory agriculture and nutrition education project on child growth in northern Malawi. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14:1466–72.
    1. Kangmennaang J, Bezner Kerr R, Lupafya E, Dakishoni L, Katundu M, Luginaah I. Impact of a participatory agroecological development project on household wealth and food security in Malawi. Food Secur. 2017;9:561–76.
    1. Bezner Kerr R, Kangmennaang J, Dakishoni L, Nyantakyi-Frimpong H, Lupafya E, Shumba L, Msachi R, Boateng GO, Snapp SS, Chitaya Aet al. . Participatory agroecological research on climate change adaptation improves smallholder farmer household food security and dietary diversity in Malawi. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2019;279:109–21.
    1. WHO.. Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices. Part 2: Measurement. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO; 2010.
    1. Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: indicator guide. Washington (DC): Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance; 2007.
    1. WHO.. WHO child growth standards: length/height-for-age, weight-for-age, weight-for-length, weight-for-height and body mass index-for-age: methods and development. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO; 2006.
    1. National Bureau of Statistics of Tanzania, Office of Chief Government Statistician.. Basic demographic and socio-economic profile and statistical tables of Tanzania mainland. [Internet]. 2014. [Cited 2017 Nov 16]. Available from: .
    1. Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics.. Singida regional profile. [Internet]. 2016. [Cited 2019 Feb 3]. Available from: .
    1. Famine Early Warning Systems Network.. Tanzania. [Internet]. 2017; [cited 2017 Mar 27]. Available from: .
    1. Tanzania Food Security and Nutrition Analysis System.. Comprehensive food security and nutrition assessment report. [Internet]. 2017. [Cited 2019 Mar 11]. Available from:
    1. Tanzania Food and Nutrition Centre, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, United Republic of Tanzania.. Tanzania National Nutrition Survey 2014—final report. [Internet]. 2014. Available from: .
    1. Chung YB, Young SL, Bezner Kerr R. Rethinking the value of unpaid care work: lessons from participatory visual research in central Tanzania. Gend Place Cult. 2019;26:1544–69.
    1. Santoso M, Larkin H, Chung Y, Ota V, Bezner Kerr R, Young S. Sub-optimal infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices in Singida, Tanzania are associated with food insecurity. FASEB J. 2015;29:898.44.
    1. Bezner Kerr R, Young SL, Young C, Santoso MV, Magalasi M, Entz M, Lupafya E, Dakishoni L, Morrone V, Wolfe Det al. . Farming for change: developing a participatory curriculum on agroecology, nutrition, climate change and social equity in Malawi and Tanzania. Agric Hum Values. 2019;36:549–66.
    1. WHO, UNICEF.. Global Nutrition Monitoring Framework: operational guidance for tracking progress in meeting targets for 2025. [Internet]. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO; 2017. [Cited 2020 Oct 13]. Available from: .
    1. Cashin K, Oot L. Guide to anthropometry: a practical tool for program planners, managers, and implementers. Washington (DC): Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project (FANTA)/FHI 360; 2018;231.
    1. Valet S, Ozier-Lafontaine H. Ecosystem services of multispecific and multistratified cropping systems. In: Ozier-Lafontaine H, Lesueur-Jannoyer M, . Agroecology and global change. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2014. p. 185–268.
    1. Schreinemachers P, Patalagsa MA, Islam MR, Uddin MN, Ahmad S, Biswas SC, Ahmed MT, Yang R-Y, Hanson P, Begum Set al. . The effect of women's home gardens on vegetable production and consumption in Bangladesh. Food Sec. 2015;7:97–107.
    1. Malapit HJ, Kovarik C, Sproule K, Meinzen-Dick RS, Quisumbing A. Instructional guide on the Abbreviated Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (A-WEAI). Washington (DC): International Food Policy Research Institute; 2015. Report no. 1647.
    1. Santoso MV. Evaluating the impact of a participatory nutrition-sensitive agriculture intervention on women's empowerment and child's diet in Singida, Tanzania. [Dissertation]. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University; 2019.
    1. FAO, FHI 360.. Minimum dietary diversity for women: a guide for measurement. Rome (Italy): FAO; 2016. p. 70p.
    1. Antelman G, Fawzi MCS, Kaaya S, Mbwambo J, Msamanga GI, Hunter DJ, Fawzi WW. Predictors of HIV-1 serostatus disclosure: a prospective study among HIV-infected pregnant women in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. AIDS. 2001;15:1865–74.
    1. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1:385–401.
    1. Natamba BK, Achan J, Arbach A, Oyok TO, Ghosh S, Mehta S, Stoltzfus RJ, Griffiths JK, Young SL. Reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale in screening for depression among HIV-infected and -uninfected pregnant women attending antenatal services in northern Uganda: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:303.
    1. Cameron AC, Gelbach JB, Miller DL. Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. Rev Econ Stat. 2008;90:414–27.
    1. Roodman D, Nielsen MØ, MacKinnon JG, Webb MD. Fast and wild: bootstrap inference in Stata using boottest. Stata J. 2019;19:4–60.
    1. Merlo J, Chaix B, Yang M, Lynch J, Råstam L. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: linking the statistical concept of clustering to the idea of contextual phenomenon. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:443–9.
    1. Clarke D, Romano JP, Wolf M. The Romano–Wolf multiple hypothesis correction in Stata. [Internet]. Rochester (NY): IZA Institute of Labor Economics; 2019. [Cited 2020 Aug 6]. Report no. 12845. Available from:
    1. Kumar N, Nguyen PH, Harris J, Harvey D, Rawat R, Ruel MT. What it takes: evidence from a nutrition- and gender-sensitive agriculture intervention in rural Zambia. J Dev Eff. 2018;10:341–72.
    1. de Brauw A, Eozenou P, Moursi M. Programme participation intensity and children's nutritional status: evidence from a randomised control trial in Mozambique. J Dev Stud. 2015;51:996–1015.
    1. Rawlins R, Pimkina S, Barrett CB, Pedersen S, Wydick B. Got milk? The impact of Heifer International's livestock donation programs in Rwanda on nutritional outcomes. Food Policy. 2014;44:202–13.
    1. Boedecker J, Odour FO, Lachat C, Damme PV, Kennedy G, Termote C. Participatory farm diversification and nutrition education increase dietary diversity in western Kenya. Matern Child Nutr. 2019;15:e12803.
    1. Olney DK, Bliznashka L, Pedehombga A, Dillon A, Ruel MT, Heckert J. A 2-year integrated agriculture and nutrition program targeted to mothers of young children in Burkina Faso reduces underweight among mothers and increases their empowerment: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Nutr. 2016;146:1109–17.
    1. Rosenberg AM, Maluccio JA, Harris J, Mwanamwenge M, Nguyen PH, Tembo G, Rawat R. Nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions, agricultural diversity, food access and child dietary diversity: evidence from rural Zambia. Food Policy. 2018;80:10–23.
    1. Doocy S, Emerson J, Colantouni E, Strong J, Mansen KA, Caulfield LE, Klemm R, Brye L, Funna S, Nzanzu J-Pet al. . Improving household food security in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: a comparative analysis of four interventions. Food Sec. 2018;10:649–60.
    1. Jones AD. Critical review of the emerging research evidence on agricultural biodiversity, diet diversity, and nutritional status in low- and middle-income countries. Nutr Rev. 2017;75:769–82.
    1. Sibhatu KT, Qaim M. Review: meta-analysis of the association between production diversity, diets, and nutrition in smallholder farm households. Food Policy. 2018;77:1–18.
    1. Johnston D, Stevano S, Malapit HJ, Hull E, Kadiyala S. Review: time use as an explanation for the agri-nutrition disconnect: evidence from rural areas in low and middle-income countries. Food Policy. 2018;76:8–18.
    1. Dulal B, Mundy G, Sawal R, Rana PP, Cunningham K. Homestead food production and maternal and child dietary diversity in Nepal: variations in association by season and agroecological zone. Food Nutr Bull. 2017;38:338–53.
    1. Tripathy P, Nair N, Sinha R, Rath S, Gope RK, Rath S, Roy SS, Bajpai A, Singh V, Nath Vet al. . Effect of participatory women's groups facilitated by Accredited Social Health Activists on birth outcomes in rural eastern India: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Heal. 2016;4:e119–28.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit