Loading…

Proposal of indicators to evaluate complementary feeding based on World Health Organization indicators

This study compares complementary feeding World Health Organization (WHO) indicators with those built in accordance with Brazilian recommendations (Ten Steps to Healthy Feeding). A cross‐sectional study was carried out during the National Immunization Campaign against Poliomyelitis in Guarapuava‐Par...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nursing & health sciences 2016-09, Vol.18 (3), p.334-341
Main Authors: Saldan, Paula Chuproski, Venancio, Sonia Isoyama, Saldiva, Silvia Regina Dias Medici, de Mello, Débora Falleiros
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study compares complementary feeding World Health Organization (WHO) indicators with those built in accordance with Brazilian recommendations (Ten Steps to Healthy Feeding). A cross‐sectional study was carried out during the National Immunization Campaign against Poliomyelitis in Guarapuava‐Paraná, Brazil, in 2012. Feeding data from 1,355 children aged 6–23 months were obtained through the 24 h diet recall. Based on five indicators, the proportion of adequacy was evaluated: introduction of solid, semi‐solid, or soft foods; minimum dietary diversity; meal frequency; acceptable diet; and consumption of iron‐rich foods. Complementary feeding showed adequacy higher than 85% in most WHO indicators, while review by the Ten Steps assessment method showed a less favorable circumstance and a high intake of unhealthy foods. WHO indicators may not reflect the complementary feeding conditions of children in countries with low malnutrition rates and an increased prevalence of overweight/obesity. The use of indicators according to the Ten Steps can be useful to identify problems and redirect actions aimed at promoting complementary feeding.
ISSN:1441-0745
1442-2018
DOI:10.1111/nhs.12273