Table 3.

Nutritional status classification of participants in the SPRING (low-income), SIT (high-income), and combined cohorts

Nutritional status, % (n)SPRING (n = 928)SIT (n = 1093)Combined (N = 2021)
None 4.3 (40) 56.6 (619) 32.6 (659) 
Underweight only 0.3 (3) 0.5 (5) 0.4 (8) 
Stunted only 3.0 (28) 12.8 (140) 8.3 (168) 
Wasted only 4.7 (44) 4.8 (53) 4.8 (97) 
Underweight and stunted 17.3 (161) 12.0 (131) 14.4 (292) 
Underweight and wasted 20.9 (194) 4.9 (54) 12.3 (248) 
Wasted and stunted 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 
Underweight, stunted, and wasted 49.4 (458) 8.3 (91) 27.2 (549) 
Nutritional status, % (n)SPRING (n = 928)SIT (n = 1093)Combined (N = 2021)
None 4.3 (40) 56.6 (619) 32.6 (659) 
Underweight only 0.3 (3) 0.5 (5) 0.4 (8) 
Stunted only 3.0 (28) 12.8 (140) 8.3 (168) 
Wasted only 4.7 (44) 4.8 (53) 4.8 (97) 
Underweight and stunted 17.3 (161) 12.0 (131) 14.4 (292) 
Underweight and wasted 20.9 (194) 4.9 (54) 12.3 (248) 
Wasted and stunted 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 
Underweight, stunted, and wasted 49.4 (458) 8.3 (91) 27.2 (549) 

Stunted (height-for-age z score < −1.0), underweight (weight-for-age z score < −1.0), and wasted (BMI z score < −1.0) were defined using z scores calculated using the World Health Organization growth reference and Canadian Pediatric Endocrine Group growth charts.

The 0.0 values indicate that all children who were stunted and wasted were also underweight.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal