Keywords
growth chart, Indonesia, risk factors, stunting, underweight
growth chart, Indonesia, risk factors, stunting, underweight
In this version, we have corrected the adjusted odds ratio value of mid-upper arm circumference as a determinant for stunting (old version AOR value = 1.796, new version AOR value = 1.769). We also have corrected the variables name, AOR, 95%CI, and p-value in Table 4.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Michael Hermanussen
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Aroonsri Mongkolchati
According to the data from 2011, the global incidence of stunting, underweight, and wasting were approximately 164.8 million (25.7%), 100.7 million (15.7%), and 51.5 million (8%) among children under five, respectively. Meanwhile, the global deaths attributed to stunting, underweight, and wasting were approximately 1.017 million (14.7%), 999,000 (14.4%), and 875,000 (12.6%)1. Until 2018, stunting and wasting rates remained alarming, although the prevalence was declining. Among continents, Asia has the highest prevalence of stunting (55%) and wasting (68%). Based on country income classification, 65% of all stunted and 73% of all wasted children live in lower- and middle-income countries2. However, in the 2018 report, there is no updated data regarding the prevalence of underweight.
The latest basic health survey in Indonesia in 2018 showed that the prevalence of stunting, underweight, and wasting was 30.8%, 17.7%, and 10.2%, respectively. Among other provinces in Indonesia, East Nusa Tenggara province has the highest prevalence of stunting and underweight, at 42.6% and 29.5%, respectively. Meanwhile, the prevalence of wasting was lower, ranked 8th out of 35 provinces3. According to child growth severity classification, the severity of stunting is high and underweight is medium in Indonesia. In East Nusa Tenggara province, the severity of stunting is very high, and the severity of underweight is high4.
However, determination of stunting and wasting always uses the WHO growth standard in Indonesia. It is believed that Indonesian children are “below” the global standard in general, thus the WHO standard is not reliable to present the actual prevalence. Therefore, the national Indonesian growth reference was made using data from National Basic Health Survey5. To this date, no study has been done to scrutinize the difference between WHO growth standard and national Indonesian growth references. This study aims to compare the prevalence and determinants of stunting and underweight using WHO growth standard and Indonesian growth reference. We use the data from one of the sub-districts in East Nusa Tenggara province because this province had the highest prevalence of stunting and underweight among children under five in Indonesia.
This study followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Department of Health Timor Tengah Utara district (approval number: DINKES.440/995/XI/2019). This study also complies with STROBE guidelines6,7. All parents gave their written informed consent prior to their children’s inclusion in the study. Information for informed consent was given before the informed consent form was signed. Details that might disclose the identity of the study subjects were omitted from the published data file.
This study was an observational cross-sectional study conducted in Musi sub-district, one of the sub-districts in East Nusa Tenggara province. Participant recruitment and data collection were conducted in July 2019. Data analysis was conducted in October – December 2019. There were six villages in Musi sub-district. The study population were children aged less than five years old. Total sampling was used for this study. The children and their parents were approached face-to-face by JF during the monthly growth monitoring program in Posyandu (“Pos Pelayanan Terpadu”), a healthcare program by the Indonesian government. Inclusion criteria were children under five who attended the growth monitoring program during the study period, who were born and live with their parents in Musi sub-district, and had maternal and child health books (Buku Kesehatan Ibu dan Anak / KIA) published by the Ministry of Health Republic Indonesia. Children with incomplete KIA was excluded from the determinants analysis.
Both primary and secondary data was used in this study. Primary data for this study consisted of data obtained through interviews with parents, child anthropometry measurements, and maternal height measurements. The interviews took place in the same location as the Posyandu and were conducted by JF using a predetermined questionnaire. The length of the interview was around five minutes. JF is a female general practitioner who worked in primary healthcare in the sub-district where the study took place. She had worked there for seven months when the study was conducted. Interviews with parents was carried out to obtain information regarding village of origin, parents’ highest education, number of parities, delivery method, and sex and age of their children. Anthropometry measurements of maternal height and child length/height were done by healthcare workers from Oeolo Primary Healthcare. Secondary data from KIA was used to obtain data regarding birthweight, gestational age, maternal mid-upper arm circumference, and maternal age during pregnancy.
Underweight and stunting were categorized using WHO growth standard and national Indonesian growth reference for the same sex5,8. Underweight is defined as weight for age below -2 standard deviations (SD), and severe underweight is defined as weight for age below -3 SD. Stunting is defined as length/height for age below -2 SD, and severe stunting is defined as length/height for age below -3 SD. The cut-off level for maternal mid-upper arm circumference was 23.5 cm, for maternal height was 150 cm, and for children’s birthweight was 2500 g. The cut-off level for maternal mid-upper arm circumference was according to the Indonesian national cut-off9, while for maternal height and children’s birthweight, the cut-off was based on a previous study10. Maternal age during pregnancy was categorized to <20 years old, 20–35 years old, and >35 years old. Gestational age and intrauterine growth were categorized based on Lubchenco charts. It categorizes the gestational age to preterm (<37 weeks), term (37–42 weeks), or postterm (>42 weeks) and the intrauterine growth to small for gestational age (SGA) (<10th percentile), appropriate for gestational age (AGA) (10th – 90th percentile), or large for gestational age (LGA) (>90th percentile)11.
Acquired data was analysed using SPSS Statistic for Windows, version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). Data analysis was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, univariate logistic regression was used to identify independent variables that were associated with stunting or underweight. Variables with p < 0.1 were included in the next phase. In second phase, multivariate logistic regression using backward selection was used. Variables with p <0.05 from multivariate analysis were considered as the determinants.
There was a total of 408 children under five in Musi sub-district. Based on WHO standard, the prevalence of stunting and underweight were 53.9% and 29.17%, respectively12,13. Using national reference, the prevalence of stunting and underweight were 10.7% and 17.7%, respectively. There was a significant difference of stunting and underweight between the prevalence from the WHO standard and national reference (both p <0.001). However, there were only 218 children that fulfilled the criteria to be included for the determinants analysis (Table 1) (Figure 1).
Variable | Total prevalence (N = 408) n (%) | p-value | Study participants (N = 218) n (%) | p-value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WHO | National | WHO | National | |||
Stunting (length/height for age index) Normal (-2 SD and above) Stunted (<-2 SD to ≤-3 SD) Severely stunted (<-3 SD) | 188(46.1) 148(36.3) 72(17.6) | 364(89.22) 41(10.05) 3(0.73) | < 0.001* | 106(48.6) 75(34.4) 37(17) | 200(91.7) 17(7.8) 1(0.5) | < 0.001* |
Underweight (weight for age index) Normal (-2 SD and above) Underweight (<-2 SD to ≤-3 SD) Severely underweight (<-3SD) | 289(70.83) 96 (23.53) 23 (5.64) | 336(82.3) 57(14) 15(3.7) | < 0.001# | 149(68.3) 55(25.3) 14(6.4) | 176(80.7) 33(15.2) 9(4.1) | < 0.001# |
The prevalence of stunting and underweight among this study population were 51.4% and 31.7% according to WHO standard and 8.3% and 19.3% according to national reference (Table 1). The number of male and female children were almost equal. More than half of the children were aged between 24 and 59 months old. Majority of the children were born term with a birthweight of more than 2500 g. The education level of both parents was mainly elementary school graduates. Almost half of the mothers had a height of less than 150 cm and more than half of the mothers had a mid-arm circumference of ≤23.5 cm during pregnancy (Table 2).
Based on WHO standard, univariate logistic regression analysis indicated that children with maternal height below 150 cm (COR = 2.844; 95% CI = 1.632 – 4.956) were more likely to be stunted (Table 3). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, other variables with p-value between 0.05 and 0.1 from the univariate analysis (child’s birthweight, child’s intrauterine growth status, maternal mid-upper arm circumference, and number of parities) were included. Multivariate analysis indicated that children with maternal height below 150 cm (AOR = 2.936; 95% CI = 1.672 – 5.154) or maternal mid-upper arm circumference below 23.5 cm (AOR = 1.769; 95% CI = 1.008 – 3.105) were more likely to be stunted (Table 4).
Variables | WHO | National | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AOR | 95% CI | p value | AOR | 95% CI | p value | |
Infant factors | ||||||
Maternal MUAC ≤23.5 cm >23.5 cm (ref) | 1.769 - | [1.008 – 3.105] - | 0.047 - | |||
Maternal height <150 cm ≥150 cm (ref) | 2.936 - | [1.672 – 5.154] - | <0.001 - |
Based on national reference, univariate logistic regression analysis indicated that children with birthweight below 2500 g (COR = 2.948; 95% CI = 1.025 – 8.476) or with a father without formal education (COR = 10; 95% CI = 1.094 – 91.441) were more likely to be stunted (Table 3). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, other variables with p-value between 0.05 and 0.1 from the univariate analysis (child’s intrauterine growth status and maternal height) were included. No determinant was found in the multivariate analysis (Table 4).
Based on WHO standard, univariate logistic regression analysis indicated that children with a birthweight below 2500 g (COR = 3.159; 95% CI = 1.507 – 6.622) or intrauterine growth restriction (COR = 3.715; 95% CI = 1.798 – 7.677) were more likely to be underweight. Children with maternal height below 150 cm (COR = 2.098; 95% CI = 1.176 – 3.745) or maternal age under 20 years old during pregnancy (COR = 5.312; 95% CI = 1.989 – 14.186) were also more likely to be underweight (Table 5). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, other variables with p-value between 0.05 and 0.1 from the univariate analysis (paternal education and number of parities) were included. Multivariate analysis indicated that children with intrauterine growth restriction (AOR = 3.182; 95% CI = 1.450 – 6.980) were more likely to be underweight. Children with maternal age under 20 years old during pregnancy (AOR = 6.252; 95% CI = 1.911 – 20.457) or with mother that had more than four parities (AOR = 4.319; 95% CI = 1.189 – 15.689) were also more likely to be underweight (Table 6).
Based on national reference, univariate logistic regression analysis indicated that children with birthweight below 2500 g (COR = 3.690; 95% CI = 1.680 – 8.107) or intrauterine growth restriction (COR = 4.825; 95% CI = 2.241 – 10.389) were more likely to be underweight. Children with mother without formal education (COR = 13.95%; CI = 1.207 – 139,959), with height below 150 cm (COR = 2.175; 95% CI = 1.095 – 4.318), or aged under 20 years old during pregnancy (COR = 3.590; 95% CI = 0.011) were also more likely to be underweight (Table 5). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, other variables with p-value between 0.05 and 0.1 from the univariate analysis (paternal education and number of parities) were included. Multivariate analysis indicated that children with intrauterine growth restriction (AOR = 4.191; 95% CI = 1.820 – 9.649) were more likely to be underweight. Children with mother without formal education (AOR = 27.341; 95% CI =1.281 – 583,318) were also more likely to be underweight (Table 6).
In our study, the prevalence of both stunting and underweight were significantly lower when measured using national Indonesian reference compared to when using WHO standard. It has been suggested that overdiagnoses of stunting or underweight are more likely to occur in developing countries14. There are many countries that already proposed their own national growth reference, which are: Korea15, Thailand16, Argentina17, China18, India14, and 18 European countries19. It is argued that the national growth reference of each country is more suitable to reflect the condition in its own population16. However, there were only few published studies that compare the difference between national growth reference and WHO growth standard. A comparison study among Thai children in the first two years of life showed that the prevalence of stunting was higher when using WHO standard in both sexes, but at 24 months the only significant difference was in girls. The prevalence of underweight showed a monotonic increment when using WHO standard, but the Thailand national reference showed a fluctuation16. In Argentina, the prevalence of underweight using WHO standard was 2 times higher than when using their national reference. Meanwhile for stunting, the prevalence when using WHO standard was 1.5 times higher17. In contrary, a comparison study from China showed that the prevalence of stunting and underweight was significantly higher when measured using their national reference18.
The marked difference in measurements using national Indonesian reference and WHO standard probably stems from the difference in methodology during the development of both growth references. The WHO standard was developed using data from six study sites: Brazil, Ghana, India, Norway, Oman, and the USA. The children included in the study were healthy children with suitable sociodemographic conditions for growth. Moreover, all participants agreed to follow the feeding recommendation by WHO20. In contrary, the development of national Indonesian reference did not have any inclusion and exclusion criteria for study participants. It also did not mention the sociodemographic background of the participants or their feeding habits. The study, however, collected data from all 33 provinces of Indonesia to better reflect the growth of Indonesian children. The rationale to develop national Indonesian growth reference was because there is a size difference between Indonesian and US Americans5.
Review article by Beal et al. concluded that the determinants of stunting in Indonesia are maternal height and education, child’s sex, premature birth and birth length, exclusive breastfeeding for six months, living area, and household socio-economic status21. In our study, the determinants of stunting according to WHO standard were maternal height less than 150 cm and maternal upper mid-arm circumference <23.5 cm. In contrast, no determinant was found when Indonesian reference was used. It is because the prevalence of stunting according to Indonesian reference was low. The significant difference in stunting prevalence calculated using national Indonesian reference and WHO standard might be because the WHO standard does not represent local growth appropriately due to population differences in height19, and Indonesian people are generally shorter than the rest of the world.
Regarding underweight, the determinants were also different according to the two different references. However, there was one common determinant: intrauterine growth restriction. The difference of underweight prevalence between WHO standard and national Indonesian reference was not as marked as the difference in stunting prevalence; this may explain that there was still one overlapping determinant. The increased odds of stunting, underweight, and wasting in SGA infants are more relevant in low- and middle-income countries22. It is suggested that SGA children are born with lower intrinsic potential for growth due to the persistent effect of growth restriction in utero23,24.
There were several limitations of this study. Data regarding socioeconomic status could not be obtained due to parents’ unstable monthly income. Data on exclusive breastfeeding cannot be obtained because some of our samples have not yet completed the exclusive breastfeeding period. Data regarding the frequency of diarrhea could not be obtained because this was not well documented in primary healthcare medical records. The sample size of this study was small, particularly the number of stunting children using national Indonesian growth reference was only 18 children. Therefore, it was not adequate to analyze the determinants. These above-mentioned factors should be accounted for in the ensuing studies. Nevertheless, despite all of the limitations, this is the first study that compare the prevalence and determinants of stunting and underweight among Indonesian children under five using WHO growth standard and national Indonesian growth reference.
The WHO standard is not suitable for representing child growth in Musi sub-district. Future studies should be done to re-evaluate the prevalence and determinants of stunting and underweight nationwide using the national Indonesian reference. An national Indonesian reference for weight-for-height should also be made to re-evaluate the prevalence and determinants of wasting in Indonesia.
Figshare: Growth standard comparison between WHO and Indonesian Growth Chart-Population Data. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12121938.v512
Figshare: Growth standard comparison between WHO and Indonesian Growth Chart-Determinants Data. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12127425.v313
Figshare: STROBE Checklist-Indonesian and WHO Growth Standard Comparison. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12127689.v26
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
The authors thank Dr. Aman Bhakti Pulungan for providing the National Indonesian Growth Reference Charts and to Oeolo primary healthcare workers for their assistance during data collection.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Maternal and Child Health
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
References
1. Nutrition Landscape Information System: Country Profile Indicators Interpretation Guide. WHO. 2010. Reference SourceCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: child growth, pediatrics, endocrinology
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 4 (revision) 15 Mar 21 |
||
Version 3 (revision) 17 Jun 20 |
||
Version 2 (revision) 27 May 20 |
read | read |
Version 1 04 May 20 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)