Nutritional Assessment of Pre-School Children in Rural Villages of the Family Dynamics, Lifestyles and Nutrition Study (1997-2001)
This paper presents the socio-economic profile of households in the Family Dynamics Study (FDS) (1997-2001) and makes comparisons with the earlier Functional Groups Study (FGS) (1992-1996). For the current study, FGS villages with a high prevalence of child malnutrition were purposively selected....
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
Nutrition Society of Malaysia
2002
|
| Online Access: | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/7029/1/mjn8n1_art2.pdf http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/7029/ http://nutriweb.org.my |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This paper presents the socio-economic profile of households in the Family Dynamics Study
(FDS) (1997-2001) and makes comparisons with the earlier Functional Groups Study (FGS)
(1992-1996). For the current study, FGS villages with a high prevalence of child malnutrition
were purposively selected. In each village selected, all households were included, and interviews
with a structured questionnaire were conducted in April-May 1998. Incomes were generally low
and incidence of poverty was high; 49.6% of the households were under the poverty line income,
of which 37.2% were poor and 12.4% were hard core poor. Overall, only 23.2% of heads of
households were in agricultural occupations, others being primarily waged workers and petty
traders. Livestock rearing was widespread (57.8%), and most households (90.4%) owned at least
one motorised vehicle, the most common being the motorcycle. The majority of households had
refrigerators (73.6%), washing machines (58.8%), and televisions (91.1%); but telephones
(42.2%), mobile phones (6.1%) and computers (2.3%) were less common. Although 99.7% of
households had electricity supply and 95.1% had either a flush or pour flush latrine, only 57.4%
had piped water supply. In comparison to the FGS, poverty in the current study is lower (49.6%
of FDS households are poor compared to 55.2% of FGS households), the proportion of
household heads in agricultural occupations is also lower (26.9% compared to 55.3%), while all
other socioeconomic indicators were better, except for piped water supply, which remains
inadequate for households in the current study.
|
|---|