Examining the complex dynamics influencing acute malnutrition in Turkana and Samburu counties: study protocol

Quantitative

Wave 1 data were collected in May–June 2021, during long rains in Turkana and June – July 2021, during a continental rainy season in Samburu. Supplementary Figure S1 shows the timing of data collection and seasons for all waves. There was a prolonged drought at Waves 3-5 in Turkana and at Waves 3 and 4 in Samburu.

Data were collected by experienced and trained fieldworkers using a questionnaire loaded in SurveyCTO – a survey platform for electronic data capture that has in-built skips and quality checks to increase efficiency and reduce the time needed for data cleaning. The questionnaire included the following modules: (1) identification and tracking, (2) demographics and household composition, (3) anthropometry of children under 5 years and mothers, (4) socioeconomics, (5) household food security, (6) water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), (7) morbidity and health-seeking behaviors, (8) MIYCN, (9) shock experience/exposure, (10) shock preparedness and response, and (11) caregiver’s psychological well-being. Supplementary Table S1 presents a description of the indicators, methods, and frequency of data collection for survey data at each wave. Data were uploaded from the tablets onto a secure APHRC server after each day of data collection. Data were synchronized automatically to a server when the tablet was in a location with internet network coverage. The uploaded data were then checked daily for quality by a data manager and a team dedicated to coordinating field procedures in both counties and at the APHRC head office in Nairobi.

At baseline, fieldworkers were recruited and trained in data collection processes for 10 days. A three-day refresher training was conducted at every subsequent wave of data collection. All fieldworkers were recruited from the local communities because they were familiar with the area, customs, and local languages. They were trained in the overall aim of the study, study tools, research ethics, interviewing techniques, and the process for obtaining informed consent. Mock interviews, field-based pilots, and debrief sessions after the pilots were conducted. The fieldworkers were also trained in the use of tablet-based questionnaires and anthropometric measurement techniques.

In addition to in-built quality control measures in the tablet-based platform and fieldworker training, other data quality control measures included conducting regular spot checks and sit-ins, mirror interviews and observation of interviews and anthropometric data measurement procedures by supervisors, data review by the field coordinators, regular data quality checks by the data manager, supportive supervision by county officials, and post-survey data cleaning. Field data collection processes in each wave were also monitored by independent teams comprising of government technical officers and Nawiri monitoring and evaluation staff.

Anthropometric equipment were calibrated daily during fieldwork to ensure accurate measurements. The weight of children was measured using a calibrated digital electronic mother/caregiver–child pair weighing scale (Seca 874–200kg). For very young children or those who could not stand on the weighing scale, weight was measured using tared weighing, whereby the weight of the mother or caregiver was measured first, after which she was asked to hold the child and stand on the scale. The mother’s or caregiver’s weight was then subtracted from the combined weight of the mother/caregiver and child to obtain the child’s weight. Adult and child height were measured using a stadiometer (Seca 213–220 cm) and length board (wooden: length/height to 130 cm), respectively. The measuring boards were calibrated using piping of a known length, while each scale was tested with a standard weight of 5 kg. Child and adult MUAC were measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)-simplified MUAC tapes that showed three classes: red, yellow, and green. Each of the weight and height measurements was taken twice and an average was calculated to ensure accuracy. Respondents were asked to remove all excess clothing and other items. Data on edema were collected for all children. Fieldworkers were trained on how to identify children with the condition, using visual aids.

The primary outcome variable was GAM (weight-for-height z-score [WHZ] < –2 standard deviations [SD], MUAC < 125 millimeters [mm]) or MUAC-for-age z-score (< –2 SD). The secondary outcome variables were stunting (height-for-age z-score [HAZ] < –2 SD) and underweight (weight-for-age z-score [WAZ] < –2 SD) (WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group, 2006).

The height and weight of mothers and caregivers were used to compute body mass index (BMI). The BMI was computed by dividing weight (in kilograms [kg]) by height in meters squared (m2) and categorized into underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (BMI = 18.5–24.99 kg/m²), overweight (BMI = 25–29.99 kg/m²), and obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

Underweight among pregnant women was assessed using MUAC with a cut-off value of 21 centimeters (cm), and short stature was assessed using the cut-off value of 145 cm as recommended by the Pan American Health Organization (Pan American Health Organization, 1991).

Infant and young child feeding practices were assessed using indicators from the World Health Organization and UNICEF (WHO & UNICEF, 2021). Minimum dietary diversity for women was determined using a cut-off value of 5 out of the 10 food groups recommended by the Women’s Dietary Diversity Project Study Group (Women’s Dietary Diversity Project Study Group, 2017).

A reduced coping strategy index (rCSI) was calculated using a set of behaviors with a universal set of severity weightings for each behavior (Maxwell & Caldwell, 2008). The five standard coping strategies and their severity weightings used in rCSI calculation included eating less-preferred foods (1.0), borrowing food or money from friends and relatives (2.0), limiting portions at mealtime (1.0), limiting adult food intake (3.0), and reducing the number of meals per day (1.0).

At baseline, a household wealth index was created using principal component analysis based on ownership of assets; house wall, floor, and roof materials; and light source. The index was then used to rank households into wealth tertiles or quintiles. Also, information on household size, sex of household head, education of household head, household adult composition (male and female adults, female adults only, male adults only or no adults), and household wealth was collected at Waves 1 and updated at 6.

Household poverty likelihood (the probability that the household is poor) was calculated based on household responses to 10 poverty probability index (PPI) questions (Innovations for Poverty Action, 2018). A PPI score was obtained by adding up the points allotted to the responses given by the household. This was then converted to a poverty likelihood by referring to published tables for the 2015 Kenya PPI (Innovations for Poverty Action, 2018).

Household food insecurity was measured using the household Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) (Ballard, Kepple, & Cafiero, 2013), which consists of eight questions capturing a range of food insecurity severity, with yes/no responses. FIES data were analyzed by Rasch modelling (Nord, 2014) based on the principles of item response theory using the RM.weights package in R (Cafiero, Viviani, & Nord, 2028) to obtain food insecurity prevalence rates.

Household water insecurity was measured using the Household Water Insecurity Experiences (HWISE) Scale, which consists of 12 items each with four response categories (S. L. Young et al., 2019). The total score, which is obtained by summing up scores of the 12 questions, can range from 0 to 36, and a household with a score of ≥12 is classified as water insecure. Data were also collected on other WASH indicators including toilet facility, hand washing, distance to water source, type of water source, and water treatment.

Qualitative

Data were collected face-to-face with eligible participants, using qualitative guides for each method of data collection (i.e., FGD, KII, IDI, or community dialogue) and type of participant by teams of fieldworkers from May 10 to June 30, 2021. All fieldworkers were recruited from their communities and were familiar with the local culture and spoke the local languages. They were trained intensively using APHRC’s training protocol, which included both theory and practice. The training also covered the use of audio recording devices and taking field notes to capture nonverbal cues, observations, and other relevant information. The fieldworkers were initially trained for 7 days in March 2021; however, due to delays in commencing fieldwork, a 2-day refresher training was offered to all fieldworkers in May 2021 before the data collection. A pilot was carried out immediately after the training to test the tools and field procedures.

Supervision consisted of two layers: (1) daily supervision by team leaders to ensure that the recruited participants met the target criteria, fieldworkers conducted the assigned interviews, recorded data were backed up daily, and debriefing meetings were conducted; and (2) weekly reviews by the data coordination team to ensure that all interviews were conducted.

Data quality control measures included random observation of group discussions or interviews, daily debriefing meetings by team leaders, cross-checking field summary notes, and holding weekly debriefing meetings between the APHRC research team and fieldworkers to review the quality of the incoming data. Audio recordings were backed up daily on a secure computer. The APHRC research team cross-checked 10% of transcribed audio files against the guide to ensure that all research questions were answered.

The photovoice exercise was carried out in selected villages across all livelihoods. Each photovoice session had six members who were split into two groups to take photos, but discussions were undertaken by the whole group stratified by age. Photovoice activities involved training research assistants who in turn trained participants on the ethics and use of cameras. This was followed by provision of cameras to selected participants, who were asked to spend 1-2 days photographing their lived experiences and perspectives on factors influencing acute malnutrition in their communities, including food, MIYCN, WASH, and women’s activities while exploring possible solutions. Under the moderation of research assistants, participants then reviewed the photographs, selected the relevant ones for printing and provided captions and descriptions explaining what each of the photographs represented.

All audio files were cross-checked for standard labeling and to confirm the achievement of the set targets per livelihood zone and group. The audio files (for IDIs, FGDs, KIIs, and community dialogues) were then transcribed verbatim from local languages and translated into English by a team of experienced transcribers with good mastery of local languages and English. Content analysis and thematic groupings were undertaken by experienced independent coders. After reading and rereading the transcripts, the coders developed a codebook of deductive and inductive codes for each interview guide.

Quantitative data

A detailed data analysis plan was developed before data collection. Because this study was designed to generate evidence to inform the development and adaptation of Nawiri programmatic interventions and strategies to reduce acute malnutrition, preliminary data analysis was conducted at the end of each wave. Descriptive analysis of the characteristics of children; mothers/caregivers; and households,WASH and MIYCN indicators, household food insecurity and coping strategies, morbidity and health-seeking behaviors, shock experience/exposure and economic safeguards, and women’s decision making was conducted at baseline and each subsequent wave of data collection. A preliminary analysis of the determinants of acute malnutrition was performed at Waves 1 and 3 and a final analysis after completion of Wave 6 is ongoing. The analysis, which is performed in Stata and accounts for the complex survey design, includes both bivariate and multivariable analysis using mixed-effects regression models to handle repeated measurements and time-invariant and time-varying predictors. Mixed effects models also handle irregularly timed and missing data without the need for explicit imputation.

Qualitative

Transcripts from IDIs, FGDs, KIIs, and community dialogues were cleaned, saved in rich-text format for importation into NVivo (QSR International) software, and analyzed according to the developed codebook using a thematic framework approach (Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2000). Intercoder variability in thematic groups was limited to less than 10%. Transcripts from the seasonal calendar and causal mapping exercises were coded and analyzed thematically. Rankings of factors in the seasonal calendars were analyzed as counts and compiled into graphs by livelihood zone. Information collected through the causal mapping exercise was presented visually using a causal diagram to demonstrate community perceptions of linkages between factors, their relative importance, and the livelihood zones that mentioned them.

The free listing data from FGDs were analyzed by grouping responses from participants on the different items of support for optimal MIYCN and then tabulating the frequencies. This step was followed by consolidating the responses further into broader thematic areas. The detailed description of the broader themes was derived from the transcripts of the discussions during the free listing exercises.