We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To compare therapeutic feeding programme coverage for severely malnourished children achieved by a community-based therapeutic care (CTC) programme and a therapeutic feeding centre (TFC) programme operating in neighbouring districts in Malawi.
Design
Two surveys were implemented simultaneously one in each of the two programme areas. Each survey used a stratified design with strata defined using the centric systematic area sample method. Thirty 100 km2 quadrats were sampled. The community or communities located closest to the centre of each quadrat were sampled using a case-finding approach. Cases were defined as children aged under 5 years with ≤ 70% of the weight-for-height median or bilateral pitting oedema. Receipt of treatment was ascertained by the child's presence in a therapeutic feeding programme or by documentary evidence. Coverage in each quadrat was estimated in two ways, a period estimate that provides an estimation of coverage for the recent period preceding the survey and a point estimate that provides an estimation of coverage at the exact point in time of the survey.
Results
Overall the period coverage was 24.55% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 17.8–31.4%) in the TFC programme and 73.64% (95% CI = 66.0–81.3%) in the CTC programme. The point coverage was 20.04% (95% CI = 13.8–26.3%) in the TFC programme and 59.95% (95% CI = 51.4–68.5%) in the CTC programme.
Conclusions
In this context, CTC gave substantially higher programme coverage than a TFC programme. Given effective treatment, this enabled higher impact of CTC on severe malnutrition in this population.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.