Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T09:27:09.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BRAC initiative towards promoting gender and social equity in health: a longitudinal study of child growth in Matlab, Bangladesh

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Masuma Khatun ,
Hans Stenlund  and
Agneta Hörnell
Masuma Khatun*
Affiliation:
Family Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, SE-901 85, Umeå, Sweden
Hans Stenlund
Affiliation:
Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
Agneta Hörnell
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Nutrition, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
*
*Corresponding author: Email masuma.khatun@fammed.umu.se
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

To explore the effect of BRAC (formerly Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee) initiatives towards promoting gender and social equity in health among children of poor mothers who are BRAC members.

Design:

A cohort of 576 children from the prospective study of a BRAC– International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh joint research project was analysed. Data were collected three times during 1995–1996 with approximately 4-month intervals. Stunting, defined as height-for-age below minus two standard deviations from the reference median, was the outcome health measure. The study children were stratified into three groups according to their mother's social and BRAC membership status: poor and BRAC member (BM), poor non-member (TG) and non-poor non-member (NTG).

Setting:

Matlab, rural area of Bangladesh.

Subjects:

Children aged 6–72 months.

Results:

The overall prevalence of stunting was 76%; the highest prevalence was found among TG (84.6%) children and no significant difference was observed between BM and NTG children (67.3% and 69.4%, respectively). In all groups, a significantly larger proportion of girls was stunted compared with boys in the first round. Group-level analysis showed that stunting decreased among all children except BM boys at the end of third round, with the largest decline among BM girls. In contrast, stunting prevalence increased among BM boys. A similar trend was found in the individual-level analysis, where a larger proportion of BM girls recovered from stunting compared with other groups and no recovery was observed among BM boys. At the end of the third round, the nutritional status of BM girls was almost equal to that of the BM boys, while gender inequity remained large among TG and NTG children.

Conclusion:

The BRAC initiative appeared to contribute to a significant equity gain in health for girls, as well as to decreased differences in ill health between the poor and the non-poor.

Keywords

GenderSocial equityStuntingLongitudinal studyDevelopment interventionEmbankmentMatlab
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 7 , Issue 8 , December 2004 , pp. 1071 - 1079
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2004

References

1World Health Organization (WHO). Women's Health and Development, Family and Reproductive Health. Gender and Health Technical Paper. Geneva: WHO, 1998.Google Scholar
2östlin, P, George, A, Sen, G. Gender, health, and equity: theintersections. In: Evans, T, Whitehead, M, Diderichsen, F, Bhuiya, A, Wirth, M, eds. Challenging Inequities in Health, From Ethics to Action. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; 174–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Lovell, CH. Breaking the Cycle of Poverty: The BRAC Strategy. Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1992.Google Scholar
4United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation(UNESCO). Education for All: The Unfulfilled Promise. Geneva: UNESCO, 2000.Google Scholar
5UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). The state of theworld's children 1998: a UNICEF report. Malnutrition: causes, consequences and solutions. Nutrition Reviews 1998; 56: 115–23.Google Scholar
6Chowdhury, AMR, Bhuiya, A, Vaughan, P, Adams, AM, Mahmud, S. Effect of socio-economic development on health status and human well-being: determining impact andexploring pathways of change: proposal for phase II of the BRAC-ICDDR,B Matlab joint research project 1996–2000.AD. Working Paper No. 6. Dhaka: BRAC Printing Press, 1995.Google Scholar
7Ahmed, HS. BRAC Research. Dhaka: BRAC Printing Press, 1998.Google Scholar
8Zaman, H. The links between BRAC input and ‘empowerment correlates’ in Matlab. Dhaka: BRAC–ICDDR,B Joint Research Project, 1996.Google Scholar
9Kamal, FM. Impact of credit-plus paradigm of development on gender inequality women's empowerment and reproductive behaviour in rural Bangladesh. Dhaka: BRAC Research, 1996.Google Scholar
10Banu, D, Farashuddin, F, Hossain, A, Akter, S. Empowering women in rural Bangladesh: impact of BRAC's programme. International Journal of Women's Studies 2001; 2: 30–53.Google Scholar
11BRAC and ICDDR,B. Socio-economic Development and Health: A Joint BRAC–ICDDR,B Research Project. Baseline Survey –Matlab. 1992, Dhaka: BRAC Printing Press, 1994.Google Scholar
12Bhuiya, A, Chowdhury, AMR. The impact of social andeconomic development programme on health and well being: a BRAC–ICDDR,B collaborative project in Matlab. Working Paper No. 1. Dhaka: BRAC Printing Press, 1995.Google Scholar
13Khatun, M, Mckim, A, Tarannum, S, Hyder, SMZ, Chowdhyry, AMR, Bhuiya, A, et al. Seasonal surveys report on nutrition:first round. Dhaka: BRAC–ICDDR,B Joint Research Project, 1996.Google Scholar
14World Health Organization (WHO). Measuring Change in Nutritional Status. Geneva: WHO, 1993.Google Scholar
15World Health Organization (WHO). Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry. Geneva: WHO, 1995.Google Scholar
16Goldstein, H. Multilevel Statistical Models. London: Edward Arnold, 1995.Google Scholar
17Bhuiya, A, Chowdhury, AMR, Ahmed, F, Adams, AM. Bangladesh: an intervention study of factors underlyingincreasing equity in child survival. In: Evans, T, Whitehead, M, Diderichsen, F, Bhuiya, A, Wirth, M, eds. Challenging Inequities in Health, From Ethics to Action. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; 226–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Frongillo, EA Jr, Hanson, KM. Determinants of variability among nations in child growth. Annals of Human Biology 1995; 22: 395–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Vella, V, Tomkins, A, Borghesi, A, Migliori, GB, Oryem, VY. Determinants of stunting and recovery from stunting in Northwest Uganda. International Journal of Epidemiology 1994; 23: 782–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Roy, RD, Hyder, SMZ, Chowdhury, AMR, Adams, A. Does involvement of women in BRAC influence sex bias in intrahousehold food distribution? Working Paper No. 25. Dhaka: BRAC Printing Press, 1998.Google Scholar
21Chowdhury, OH, Khandker, SR. Do Targeted Credit Programmes Improve the Nutritional Status of the Poor? Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies/Educationand Social Policy Department, World Bank, 1995.Google Scholar
22Myaux, JA, Ali, M, Chakraborty, J, de Francisco, A. Flood control embankment contributes to the improvement of the health status of children in rural Bangladesh. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 1997; 75: 533–9.Google Scholar