Skip to main content

Table 6 Associations between indigenous food production and mother's food security status during planting season

From: Seasonality of associations between production of indigenous foods and food security status of mother-child dyads in Kisumu County, Kenya

Variables

Food Security Status

χ2

p-value

OR

95% CI

p-value

Food secure

n (%)

Mildly food insecure

n (%)

Moderately food insecure

n (%)

Severely food insecure

n (%)

     

Indigenous food production

         

 Kidney Beans

         

  Yes

1 (0.5)

5 (2.6)

23 (12.2)

42 (22.2)

8.591

0.035*

0.469

0.228–0.964

0.039*

  No

0 (0.0)

5 (2.6)

21 (11.1)

92 (48.7)

     

 Soya Beans

         

  Yes

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

3 (1.6)

2 (1.0)

3.965

0.265

0.285

0.036–2.242

0.233

  No

1 (0.5)

10 (5.3)

41 (21.7)

132 (69.8)

     

 Millet

         

  Yes

0 (0.0)

1 (0.5)

1 (0.5)

5 (2.6)

1.403

0.705

1.991

0.274–14.480

0.496

  No

1 (0.5)

9 (4.8)

43 (22.8)

129 (68.3)

     

 Sorghum

         

  Yes

0 (0.0)

4 (2.1)

9 (4.8)

21 (11.1)

4.172

0.243

0.552

0.231–1.324

0.183

  No

1 (0.5)

6 (3.2)

35 (18.5)

113 (59.8)

     

 Cassava

         

  Yes

1 (0.5)

3 (1.6)

17 (9.0)

36 (19.0)

4.507

0.212

0.796

0.345–1.834

0.592

  No

0 (0.0)

7 (3.7)

27 (14.3)

98 (51.9)

     

 Sweet Potatoes

         

  Yes

1 (0.5)

3 (1.6)

15 (7.9)

33 (17.5)

4.180

0.243

0.797

0.366–1.735

0.567

  No

0 (0.0)

7 (3.7)

29 (15.3)

101 (53.4)

     

 Ground Nuts

         

  Yes

1 (0.5)

3 (1.6)

22 (11.6)

44 (23.3)

6.097

0.107

0.761

0.359–1.610

0.475

  No

0 (0.0)

7 (3.7)

22 (11.6)

90 (47.6)

     

 Green Grams

         

  Yes

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

4 (2.1)

15 (7.9)

1.467

0.690

2.445

0.576–10.386

0.226

  No

1 (0.5)

10 (5.2)

40 (21.2)

119 (63.0)

     

 Cow Peas

         

  Yes

0 (0.0)

2 (1.0)

17 (9.0)

34 (18.0)

3.631

0.304

0.796

0.373–1.701

0.556

  No

1 (0.5)

8 (4.2)

27 (14.3)

100 (52.9)

     

 Amaranth leaves

         

  Yes

0 (0.0)

3 (1.6)

13 (6.9)

38 (20.1)

0.433

0.933

1.254

0.559–2.810

0.583

  No

1 (0.5)

7 (3.7)

31 (16.4)

96 (50.8)

     

 Spider Plant

         

  Yes

0 (0.0)

3 (1.6)

14 (7.4)

42 (22.2)

0.469

0.926

1.225

0.524–2.863

0.640

  No

1 (0.5)

7 (3.7)

30 (15.9)

92 (48.7

     

 Black nightshade

         

  Yes

0 (0.0)

1 (0.5)

10 (5.2)

19 (10.1)

2.283

0.516

0.868

0.319–2.363

0.782

  No

1 (0.5)

9 (4.8)

34 (18.0)

115 (60.9)

     

 Mangoes

         

  Yes

1 (0.5)

4 (2.1)

28 (14.8)

64 (33.9)

4.812

0.186

0.720

0.320–1.619

0.426

  No

0 (0.0)

6 (3.2)

16 (8.5)

70 (37.0)

     

 Guavas

         

  Yes

1 (0.5)

4 (2.1)

22 (11.6)

52 (27.5)

3.116

0.374

1.192

0.532–2.669

0.669

  No

0 (0.0)

6 (3.2)

22 (11.6)

82 (43.4)

     

 Lime

         

  Yes

0 (0.0)

1 (0.5)

12 (6.3)

29 (15.3)

1.825

0.609

0.917

0.370–2.273

0.852

  No

1 (0.5)

9 (4.8)

32 (16.9)

105 (55.6)

     

 Tamarind

         

  Yes

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

3 (1.6)

7 (3.7)

0.821

0.845

2.175

0.440-10.742

0.340

  No

1 (0.5)

10 (5.2)

41 (21.7)

127 (67.2)

     
  1. *Pearson Chi-Square (χ2) test for associations. *Statistically significant χ2 association at α ≤ 0.05. OR odds ratio, 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval. OR generated through ordinary logistic regress using PLUM test procedure. Classifications on food (in) security status were derived based on the frequency of occurrence of food insecurity experiences and respective coping strategies adopted
Back to article page

BMC Nutrition

ISSN: 2055-0928

Contact us