Cargando…

Identifying underweight in infants and children using growth charts, lookup tables and a novel “MAMI” slide chart: A cross-over diagnostic and acceptability study

Malnutrition is a leading cause of preventable deaths in infants and children. To benefit from treatment and prevention programmes, malnourished children must first be identified. Low weight-for-age is an anthropometric indicator of malnutrition which is gaining much recent attention because it is p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Monga, Meenakshi, Sikorski, Catherine, de silva, Himali, McGrath, Marie, Kerac, Marko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10468082/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37647273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002303
Descripción
Sumario:Malnutrition is a leading cause of preventable deaths in infants and children. To benefit from treatment and prevention programmes, malnourished children must first be identified. Low weight-for-age is an anthropometric indicator of malnutrition which is gaining much recent attention because it is particularly effective at identifying children at highest risk of death. However, assessing weight-for-age can be challenging. We aimed to evaluate a novel, low-cost weight-for-age slide chart and compare its performance against two traditional methods. We conducted a cross-over diagnostic study comparing a new “MAMI” slide-chart against traditional growth charts and look-up tables. Participants were health and public health professionals working or studying in the UK. Each acted as their own control, using all three methods but in random order. Under timed conditions, they evaluated hypothetical scenarios, arranged in a random sequence. Each tool’s diagnostic accuracy and response rate were compared. User preferences were also recorded. Sixty-two participants took part. Diagnostic accuracy was highest for the MAMI chart: 79%(351/445) correct assessments. Accuracy using look-up tables was 70%(308/438). Growth charts performed worst: 61%(217/353) correct (p-value<0.01). The mean number of scenarios (±SD) correctly identified by each participant in 4-minutes was 3.5(±2.19) using growth charts; 4.97(±2.50) using look-up tables; 5.66(±2.69) using MAMI charts (ANOVA, p-value<0.01). This translates to approximately 53, 75 and 85 correct assessments per participant in an hour for the respective tools. No statistically significant differences were found with participants’ years of experience or profession type. Most participants, 43/62(69%), preferred the MAMI chart and reported it to be easier and faster to use than traditional tools. We conclude that weight-for-age assessment is quicker and more accurate using the newly-developed MAMI slide chart as opposed to traditional methods. It should be further field tested in other settings since the potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of treatment programmes is great.