ANALYSIS OF A NUTRITION SURVEY, CONDUCTED IN TURKANA (NORTHERN KENYA)
(DECEMBER 2004)
The data of the 2004 survey are attached as Annex 1. A comparison with the data of 2003 is presented in
Annex 2. A brief summary of background data of the 2004 survey is presented in Annex 3. (
For background data on the 2003 situation: see the report on that survey.) The 2004 survey is basically
a repetition of a study conducted one year earlier in the same area, under the same population, conducted
by the same persons.
The 2004 survey
The main conclusions regarding the BMI are presented below, together with some brief comments:
| Measure
| Value
| Comments
|
| Total number (n) |
136
| Number of people for whom a BMI is determined. (All those for whom no BMI was established were already left out on the sheet with survey data received.) |
| Standard deviation |
2.32
| Standard deviation (a measure of the dispersion of the observed values) |
| Average |
16.93
| Average (or 'mean') BMI |
| 95% Confidence interval |
| Range of the real average BMI in the 'reference population' (with 95% probability) |
| Min.= |
16.54
| Lower limit of the real average (with 95% probability) |
| Max.= |
17.32
| Upper limit of the real average (with 95% probability) |
| Minimum |
12.0
| Lowest observed BMI in the sample |
| Maximum |
23.3
| Highest observed BMI in the sample |
| Median |
16.89
| The 'middle' BMI |
| BMI <16.0 = (abs.no.) |
48
| Number of persons in the sample population with a BMI < 16.0 |
| BMI <16.0 = (%) |
35%
| Percentage of the sample population with a BMI < 16.0 |
| 95% Confidence interval |
| Range of the real proportion of persons with a BMI < 16.0 in the 'reference population' (with 95% probability) |
| Min.= |
27%
| Lower limit of the real proportion of persons with a BMI < 16.0 in the 'reference population' (with 95% probability) |
| Max.= |
43%
| Upper limit of the real proportion of persons with a BMI < 16.0 in the 'reference population' (with 95% probability) |
- Thus the average (or 'mean') BMI in the 2004 sample was 16.93. If we consider the survey as a sample of
some larger reference population (e.g. all those who are registered with the Ewoi programme), we can
calculate (with the help of the 'standard deviation') that, with 95% probability, the real average of
the entire reference population lies between 16.5 and 17.3. (the '95% confidence interval'). This is
slightly better than last year, when the confidence interval was from 16.0 to 16.8. However, since the
two confidence intervals overlap, one can not speak of a statistically 'significant' improvement. In
other words, the difference between the average BMIs of 2003 and 2004 may well be the result of random
variation in measurements.
In fact, 'averages' are always a bit inflated by a small number of high values. A more realistic measure is
often the 'median'; also referred to as the 'middle value'. This is the value below and above which lie 50%
of all observations. This median in 2004 was 16.89 (slightly lower than the 'mean'). The median too is a
little higher than in 2003 , when it was 16.15.
It also emerges, furthermore, that 35% of those for whom a BMI has been determined in the sample, have a
BMI below 16.0. Again, if we consider the study as a sample, we can calculate that, with 95% probability,
the real proportion of persons with a BMI < 16.0 in the entire ('reference')population lies between 27%
and 43% (the '95% confidence interval'). This too is a better result than in 2003, when the percentage
ranged from 35% to 52% 1).
Again, the difference is statistically not 'significant'.
| 1) At the time erroneously reported as 38% and 50% respectively. |
- For information about the likely impact of different BMIs on people's health and life expectancy, see
the report of last year. - Since the main use of the MUAC appeared to be: getting some quick idea about
the BMI, no separate efforts were made to collect MUAC measurements.
On the basis of the survey sample, one can say that about three quarter of those who participated in the
2004 survey must be described as "possibly under nourished" and half of them as suffering from "moderate
thinness" or from "malnutrition" (depending on the references used).
Furthermore, over one third (35%) can simply be described as "under-nourished", or as suffering from
"severe thinness" (and "malnutrition").
Changes from the 2003 to the 2004 survey
As can be seen from the data in Annex 2, a total of 97 individuals were included in both the 2003 and the
2004 survey. This presents an opportunity to compare the changes from 2003 to 2004 among individuals
(with less distortion by random variation than if one compares the overall 2003 average with the overall
2004 average).
Thus, it appears that on average, in this sample 2), the BMI per individual increased with 0.64. With 95%
confidence we can say that the real increase in BMI must have between between 0.35 and 0.92. Thus (with
the confidence interval excluding '0'), there was a statistically significant improvement in individual
BMI scores.
| 2) i.e. of individuals who were registered with the Ewoi programme
in 2003 as well as in 2004. |
The median improvement was 0.58.
Below is a graph, showing the number of persons with varying degrees of changes in their BMI.
Increase Decrease
Conclusions
Unmistakably there appears to have been an improvement in BMI scores from 2003 to 2004. Although the
difference between the average BMI scores of 2003 and 2004 is statistically not significant, the average
of individual changes was indeed significant. However, the actual changes per individual were in fact quite
small (as can be seen from the graph), with two thirds of the observed changes ranging from - 0.5 to + 1.5.
This improvement may be due to activities carried out by the programme, during the last year. However,
before accepting such conclusion, possible alternative explanations should be ruled out. In particular
the following questions need to be considered:
- Could the observed change be the result of other factors, that were operative in the area, but which are not related to the programme? (e.g. the weather, food distribution by others, agricultural inputs, increased economic standards, etc.)
- Could the observed change be the result of errors in the measurement (e.g. faulty scales, etc.)?
Although the findings of 2004 are better than those of 2003, the nutritional status of the participants in
the survey is still bad. Using the same criteria and assumptions as last year, the reference population from
which the sample was drawn still has about 5 times as many illness-days in a year as well-nourished persons
and their mortality is still about 50% higher.
For just over one third of the reference population mortality would be 3 times as high as in well-nourished
persons. (Last year this applied to 'almost half' of the reference population.)
Before making any inferences on the nutritional status (and the changes therein) of the population at large,
one has to determine (just like last year): 'what exactly is the reference population?' Do those who were
included in the survey(s) represent the entire population of Turkana? Or of a smaller area (District?)
only? Or just the population over 50 in that area? Or merely the (most needy) persons among them? Or
only those 'most needy' persons who could be reached by the programme? Or only the stronger ones among
them (who were able to come to the Centre)? Or, perhaps, the weaker ones (who needed a free meal most)?
- It may not be so easy to answer these questions, but for a generalisation of the findings this is
nevertheless important.
Like last year, a purposeful selection of 'needy people' has apparently been made. Thus the average BMI in
this sample is likely to be lower than that of the overall Turkana population (even of the Turkana
population over 50). Similarly, the proportion of persons in the sample with a BMI < 16.0 is likely to
be larger than that of the entire population (even of the Turkana population over 50).
Probably one can only say with cerrtainty that the persons in the study are representative of the
of the Ewoi Project. It should be remembered however that, of 48 persons who turned up, no BMI was
obtained, because they were physically unable to undergo the measurements. If these too had been
included in the survey the results would probably have been worse.
| In a general sense one may conclude that most participants in the Ewoi Project are possibly under
nourished; half are definitely malnourished and one third of them are seriously malnourished. yet,
it appears that there has been some noticeable improvement over last year: individual BMIs increased
with a value of 0.64. |
29-12-04,
Eric R. de Winter, MD, MPH
ANNEX 1
Survey data December 2004
| Location
| No.
| Serial No.
| Weight (kg)
| Height (m)
| (Height)Square
| BMI=Weight /
(Height) Square
| BMI(Autom.)
|
| Nakwamakwi |
1
| 3
| 46.5
| 1.49
|
|
| 20.9
|
|
| 2
| 28
| 35
| 1.537
|
|
| 14.8
|
|
| 3
| 34
| 44.5
| 1.654
|
|
| 16.3
|
|
| 4
| 41
| 36
| 1.587
| |
|
14.3
|
| |
5
| 54
| 43
| 1.614
|
|
| 16.5
|
| |
6
| 62
| 37.5
| 1.566
|
|
| 15.3
|
| |
7
| 72
| 36.5
| 1.55
|
|
| 15.2
|
| |
8
| 73
| 45
| 1.602
|
|
| 17.5
|
| |
9
| 79
| 45
| 1.589
|
|
| 17.8
|
| |
10
| 84
| 56
| 1.822
|
|
| 16.9
|
| |
11
| 91
| 37.5
| 1.564
|
|
| 15.3
|
| |
12
| 95
| 39
| 1.682
|
|
| 13.8
|
| |
13
| 89
| 35.5
| 1.535
|
|
| 15.1
|
| |
14
| 144
| 37.5
| 1.463
|
|
| 17.5
|
| |
15
| 153
| 32.5
| 1.64
|
|
| 12.1
|
| |
16
| 158
| 55
| 1.73
|
|
| 18.4
|
| |
17
| 164
| 54.5
| 1.58
|
|
| 21.8
|
| |
18
| 165
| 43.5
| 1.583
|
|
| 17.4
|
| |
19
| 166
| 33
| 1.655
|
|
| 12.0
|
| |
20
| 167
| 43
| 1.633
|
|
| 16.1
|
| |
21
| 170
| 32
| 1.503
|
|
| 14.2
|
| |
22
| 172
| 51
| 1.607
|
|
| 19.7
|
| |
23
| 175
| 42.5
| 1.573
|
|
| 17.2
|
| |
24
| 176
| 41.5
| 1.615
|
|
| 15.9
|
| |
25
| 212
| 56
| 1.63
|
|
| 21.1
|
| |
26
| 216
| 40
| 1.572
|
|
| 16.2
|
| |
27
| 229
| 36
| 1.647
|
|
| 13.3
|
| |
28
| 233
| 54.5
| 1.732
|
|
| 18.2
|
| |
29
| 240
| 37.5
| 1.713
|
|
| 12.8
|
| |
30
| 241
| 34
| 1.472
|
|
| 15.7
|
| |
31
| 234
| 38.5
| 1.594
|
|
| 15.2
|
| |
32
| 236
| 42
| 1.611
|
|
| 16.2
|
| |
33
| 239
| 34.5
| 1.622
|
|
| 13.1
|
| |
34
| 270
| 46.5
| 1.663
|
|
| 16.8
|
| |
35
| 287
| 38
| 1.613
|
|
| 14.6
|
| Kawalase |
36
| 15
| 43
| 1.61
|
|
| 16.6
|
| |
37
| 61
| 39
| 1.5
|
|
| 17.3
|
| |
38
| 74
| 50
| 1.626
|
|
| 18.9
|
| |
39
| 98
| 43
| 1.724
|
|
| 14.5
|
| |
40
| 143
| 35
| 1.47
|
|
| 16.2
|
| |
41
| 184
| 42
| 1.57
|
|
| 17.0
|
| |
42
| 187
| 42
| 1.587
|
|
| 16.7
|
| |
43
| 188
| 56
| 1.623
|
|
| 21.3
|
| |
44
| 191
| 37
| 1.664
|
|
| 13.4
|
| |
45
| 196
| 44
| 1.51
|
|
| 19.3
|
| |
46
| 214
| 41
| 1.482
|
|
| 18.7
|
| |
47
| 12
| 51
| 1.703
|
|
| 17.6
|
| |
48
| 301A
| 34
| 1.6
|
|
| 13.3
|
| |
49
| 134
| 44
| 1.506
|
|
| 19.4
|
| |
50
| 135
| 39
| 1.521
|
|
| 16.9
|
| |
51
| 136
| 51
| 1.58
|
|
| 20.4
|
| |
52
| 138
| 48
| 1.66
|
|
| 17.4
|
| |
53
| 257
| 43
| 1.486
|
|
| 19.5
|
| |
54
| 259
| 41
| 1.49
|
|
| 18.5
|
| |
55
| 264
| 57
| 1.77
|
|
| 18.2
|
| |
56
| 10
| 46
| 1.583
|
|
| 18.4
|
| |
57
| 227
| 41
| 1.655
|
|
| 15.0
|
| |
58
| 228
| 43.5
| 1.621
|
|
| 16.6
|
| |
59
| 262
| 45
| 1.632
|
|
| 16.9
|
| |
60
| 24
| 42.5
| 1.539
|
|
| 17.9
|
| |
61
| 78
| 41
| 1.558
|
|
| 16.9
|
| |
62
| 225
| 53
| 1.507
|
|
| 23.3
|
| |
63
| 230
| 46
| 1.52
|
|
| 19.9
|
| |
64
| 231
| 55
| 1.684
|
|
| 19.4
|
| Napatet |
65
| 30
| 35
| 1.578
|
|
| 14.1
|
| |
66
| 43
| 29.5
| 1.312
|
|
| 17.1
|
| |
67
| 44
| 39.5
| 1.608
|
|
| 15.3
|
| |
68
| 52
| 48.5
| 1.641
|
|
| 18.0
|
| |
69
| 81
| 41
| 1.536
|
|
| 17.4
|
| |
70
| 82
| 37.5
| 1.52
|
|
| 16.2
|
| |
71
| 85
| 49.5
| 1.621
|
|
| 18.8
|
| |
72
| 87
| 51
| 1.617
|
|
| 19.5
|
| |
73
| 133
| 39.5
| 1.642
|
|
| 14.7
|
| |
74
| 201
| 37
| 1.648
|
|
| 13.6
|
| |
75
| 221
| 51
| 1.604
|
|
| 19.8
|
| |
76
| 235
| 42
| 1.506
|
|
| 18.5
|
| |
77
| 263
| 42
| 1.618
|
|
| 16.0
|
| |
78
| 278
| 32
| 1.6
|
|
| 12.5
|
| |
79
| 277
| 40
| 1.583
|
|
| 16.0
|
| |
80
| 285
| 39.5
| 1.628
|
|
| 14.9
|
| |
81
| 286
| 50.5
| 1.63
|
|
| 19.0
|
| |
82
| 295
| 51
| 1.713
|
|
| 17.4
|
| |
83
| 299
| 43.5
| 1.614
|
|
| 16.7
|
| |
84
| 1
| 37
| 1.596
|
|
| 14.5
|
| |
85
| 6
| 50
| 1.593
|
|
| 19.7
|
| |
86
| 55
| 39.5
| 1.562
|
|
| 16.2
|
| |
87
| 103
| 37
| 1.541
|
|
| 15.6
|
| |
88
| 146
| 42
| 1.553
|
|
| 17.4
|
| |
89
| 147
| 52
| 1.61
|
|
| 20.1
|
| |
90
| 151
| 50
| 1.649
|
|
| 18.4
|
| |
91
| 204
| 61
| 1.695
|
|
| 21.2
|
| |
92
| 205
| 43
| 1.566
|
|
| 17.5
|
| |
93
| 35
| 34
| 1.489
|
|
| 15.3
|
| |
94
| 107
| 40
| 1.522
|
|
| 17.3
|
| |
95
| 272
| 34.5
| 1.535
|
|
| 14.6
|
| |
96
| 274
| 40
| 1.595
|
|
| 15.7
|
| |
97
| 275
| 45
| 1.496
|
|
| 20.1
|
| |
98
| 273
| 41.5
| 1.612
|
|
| 16.0
|
| |
99
| 152
| 55
| 1.655
|
|
| 20.1
|
| |
100
| 255
| 50
| 1.654
|
|
| 18.3
|
| Kanamkemer |
101
| 22
| 48
| 1.695
|
|
| 16.7
|
| |
102
| 47
| 35
| 1.484
|
|
| 15.9
|
| |
103
| 58
| 40
| 1.461
|
|
| 18.7
|
| |
104
| 67
| 45
| 1.755
|
|
| 14.6
|
| |
105
| 76
| 36
| 1.694
|
|
| 12.5
|
| |
106
| 88
| 42
| 1.651
|
|
| 15.4
|
| |
107
| 128
| 37
| 1.504
|
|
| 16.4
|
| |
108
| 129
| 50
| 1.505
|
|
| 22.1
|
| |
109
| 131
| 46
| 1.656
|
|
| 16.8
|
| |
110
| 195
| 37
| 1.571
|
|
| 15.0
|
| |
111
| 199
| 44
| 1.587
|
|
| 17.5
|
| |
112
| 251
| 50
| 1.599
|
|
| 19.6
|
| |
113
| 254
| 64
| 1.805
|
|
| 19.6
|
| |
114
| 260
| 40
| 1.661
|
|
| 14.5
|
| |
115
| 268
| 50
| 1.685
|
|
| 17.6
|
| |
116
| 289
| 51
| 1.605
|
|
| 19.8
|
| |
117
| 290
| 40
| 1.611
|
|
| 15.4
|
| |
118
| 291
| 47
| 1.531
|
|
| 20.1
|
| |
119
| 292
| 44
| 1.494
|
|
| 19.7
|
| |
120
| 93
| 48
| 1.625
|
|
| 18.2
|
| |
121
| 96
| 39
| 1.632
|
|
| 14.6
|
| |
122
| 130
| 42
| 1.505
|
|
| 18.5
|
| |
123
| 197
| 31
| 1.605
|
|
| 12.0
|
| |
124
| 198
| 44
| 1.583
|
|
| 17.6
|
| |
125
| 211
| 45
| 1.578
|
|
| 18.1
|
| |
126
| 218
| 34
| 1.567
|
|
| 13.8
|
| |
127
| 237
| 49
| 1.608
|
|
| 19.0
|
| |
128
| 238
| 40
| 1.621
|
|
| 15.2
|
| |
129
| 7
| 32
| 1.545
|
|
| 13.4
|
| |
130
| 8
| 39
| 1.591
|
|
| 15.4
|
| |
131
| 66
| 45
| 1.617
|
|
| 17.2
|
| |
132
| 118
| 35
| 1.433
|
|
| 17.0
|
| |
133
| 120
| 41
| 1.465
|
|
| 19.1
|
| |
134
| 121
| 44
| 1.609
|
|
| 17.0
|
| |
135
| 194
| 47
| 1.537
|
|
| 19.9
|
| |
136
| 195
| 37
| 1.571
|
|
| 15.0
|
Criterion for cut-off point: BMI (Autom.): <16
| n |
|
|
136
|
| Average |
|
|
16.93
|
| Standard dev. |
|
|
2.32
|
| |
95% Confidence interval |
| |
|
Min.= |
16.54
|
| |
|
Max.= |
17.32
|
| Mimimum |
|
|
12.0
|
| Maximum |
|
|
23.3
|
| Median |
|
|
16.89
|
| BMI |
<16 |
|
48
|
| BMI |
<16 |
|
35%
|
| |
95% Confidence interval |
| |
|
Min.= |
27%
|
| |
|
Max.= |
43%
|
ANNEX 2
Survey data 2003 vs.2004
| Serial No.
| BMI 2003
| BMI 2004
| BMI change 2003-2004
|
| 1
| 13.8
| 14.5
| 0.7
|
| 3
| 20.5
| 20.9
| 0.4
|
| 4
| 20.0
|
|
|
| 6
| 18.8
| 19.7
| 0.9
|
| 7
| 15.5
| 13.4
| -2.1
|
| 8
| 15.4
| 15.4
| 0.0
|
| 10
|
| 18.4
|
|
| 12
| 16.9
| 17.6
| 0.7
|
| 15
| 15.4
| 16.6
| 1.2
|
| 17
| 17.6
|
|
|
| 22
|
| 16.7
|
|
| 24
| 18.3
| 17.9
| -0.4
|
| 28
| 15.4
| 14.8
| -0.6
|
| 30
| 14.2
| 14.1
| -0.1
|
| 32
| 15.0
|
|
|
| 34
| 15.4
| 16.3
| 0.9
|
| 35
|
| 15.3
|
|
| 41
| 13.0
| 14.3
| 1.3
|
| 42
| 19.5
|
|
|
| 43
|
| 17.1
|
|
| 44
|
| 15.3
|
|
| 22
| 17.1
| 15.9
| -1.2
|
| 49
| 17.4
|
|
|
| 52
| 15.9
| 18.0
| 2.1
|
| 54
| 17.9
| 16.5
| -1.4
|
| 55
| 15.8
| 16.2
| 0.4
|
| 58
| 19.2
| 18.7
| -0.5
|
| 61
| 16.8
| 17.3
| 0.5
|
| 62
| 15.4
| 15.3
| -0.1
|
| 63
| 16.1
|
|
|
| 66
| 15.6
| 17.2
| 1.6
|
| 67
| 14.5
| 14.6
| 0.1
|
| 68
| 19.3
|
|
|
| 72
| 14.5
| 15.2
| 0.7
|
| 73
|
| 17.5
|
|
| 74
| 21.2
| 18.9
| -2.3
|
| 76
|
| 12.5
|
|
| 78
| 17.0
| 16.9
| -0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 79
|
| 17.8
|
|
| 81
| 17.5
| 17.4
| -0.1
|
| 82
| 16.0
| 16.2
| 0.2
|
| 83
| 15.5
|
|
|
| 84
|
| 16.9
|
|
| 85
|
| 18.8
|
|
| 87
| 19.2
| 19.5
| 0.3
|
| 88
|
| 15.4
|
|
| 89
| 14.5
| 15.1
| 0.6
|
| 90
| 15.3
|
|
|
| 91
| 15.0
| 15.3
| 0.3
|
| 93
| 18.1
| 18.2
| 0.1
|
| 95
| 13.5
| 13.8
| 0.3
|
| 96
| 14.0
| 14.6
| 0.6
|
| 98
| 14.2
| 14.5
| 0.3
|
| 99
| 15.8
|
|
|
| 103
| 16.0
| 15.6
| -0.4
|
| 107
| 14.9
| 17.3
| 2.4
|
| 108
| 13.4
|
|
|
| 118
| 16.6
| 17.0
| 0.4
|
| 120
| 13.3
| 19.1
| 5.8
|
| 121
|
| 17.0
|
|
| 123
| 17.1
|
|
|
| 128
|
| 16.4
|
|
| 129
| 20.3
| 22.1
| 1.8
|
| 130
| 17.9
| 18.5
| 0.6
|
| 131
| 16.0
| 16.8
| 0.8
|
| 133
| 14.1
| 14.7
| 0.6
|
| 134
| 19.0
| 19.4
| 0.4
|
| 135
| 16.2
| 16.9
| 0.7
|
| 136
| 19.5
| 20.4
| 0.9
|
| 138
|
| 17.4
|
|
| 142
| 12.8
|
|
|
| 143
|
| 16.2
|
|
| 144
| 17.6
| 17.5
| -0.1
|
| 146
| 17.9
| 17.4
| -0.5
|
| 147
| 17.9
| 20.1
| 2.2
|
| 151
| 17.9
| 18.4
| 0.5
|
| 152
| 18.9
| 20.1
| 1.2
|
| 153
| 15.8
| 12.1
| -3.7
|
| 157
| 15.0
|
|
|
| 158
| 16.0
| 18.4
| 2.4
|
| 159
| 17.0
|
|
|
| 161
| 16.2
|
|
|
| 164
| 20.6
| 21.8
| 1.2
|
| 165
|
| 17.4
|
|
| 166
|
| 12.0
|
|
| 167
| 16.0
| 16.1
| 0.1
|
| 168
| 14.6
|
|
|
| 170
| 16.2
| 14.2
| -2.0
|
| 172
|
| 19.7
|
|
| 175
| 16.9
| 17.2
| 0.3
|
| 176
| 15.4
| 15.9
| 0.5
|
| 184
| 16.8
| 17.0
| 0.2
|
| 187
| 18.4
| 16.7
| -1.7
|
| 188
| 22.6
| 21.3
| -1.3
|
| 191
|
| 13.4
|
|
| 192
| 14.0
|
|
|
| 194
| 16.8
| 19.9
| 3.1
|
| 195
| 14.2
| 15.0
| 0.8
|
| 195
|
| 15.0
|
|
| 196
|
| 19.3
|
|
| 197
| 14.2
| 12.0
| -2.2
|
| 198
| 17.4
| 17.6
| 0.2
|
| 199
| 16.0
| 17.5
| 1.5
|
| 201
| 14.8
| 13.6
| -1.2
|
| 203
| 12.5
|
|
|
| 204
| 20.4
| 21.2
| 0.8
|
| 205
| 16.0
| 17.5
| 1.5
|
| 209
| 14.6
|
|
|
| 210
| 14.0
|
|
|
| 211
| 17.2
| 18.1
| 0.9
|
| 212
| 18.1
| 21.1
| 3.0
|
| 214
| 16.4
| 18.7
| 2.3
|
| 216
|
| 16.2
|
|
| 218
| 13.0
| 13.8
| 0.8
|
| 220
| 18.5
|
|
|
| 221
| 18.7
| 19.8
| 1.1
|
| 222
| 19.6
|
|
|
| 225
| 22.5
| 23.3
| 0.8
|
| 226
| 17.5
|
|
|
| 227
| 13.8
| 15.0
| 1.2
|
| 228
| 17.1
| 16.6
| -0.5
|
| 229
| 12.5
| 13.3
| 0.8
|
| 230
| 19.8
| 19.9
| 0.1
|
| 231
| 18.6
| 19.4
| 0.8
|
| 233
| 18.5
| 18.2
| -0.3
|
| 234
|
| 15.2
|
|
| 235
| 13.4
| 18.5
| 5.1
|
| 236
| 14.6
| 16.2
| 1.6
|
| 237
| 18.3
| 19.0
| 0.7
|
| 238
|
| 15.2
|
|
| 239
| 13.2
| 13.1
| -0.1
|
| 240
| 11.4
| 12.8
| 1.4
|
| 241
| 15.7
| 15.7
| 0.0
|
| 249
| 13.6
|
|
|
| 250
| 17.0
|
|
|
| 251
| 19.1
| 19.6
| 0.5
|
| 254
|
| 19.6
|
|
| 255
| 17.7
| 18.3
| 0.6
|
| 257
| 16.5
| 19.5
| 3.0
|
| 259
| 16.7
| 18.5
| 1.8
|
| 260
| 16.3
| 14.5
| -1.8
|
| 261
| 19.0
|
|
|
| 262
| 15.0
| 16.9
| 1.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 263
|
| 16.0
|
|
| 264
| 17.0
| 18.2
| 1.2
|
| 268
| 14.5
| 17.6
| 3.1
|
| 270
|
| 16.8
|
|
| 272
| 11.6
| 14.6
| 3.0
|
| 273
| 15.0
| 16.0
| 1.0
|
| 274
| 14.4
| 15.7
| 1.3
|
| 275
| 16.6
| 20.1
| 3.5
|
| 277
| 16.0
|
|
|
| 278
| 12.5
|
|
|
| 285
| 14.9
|
|
|
| 286
| 19.0
|
|
|
| 287
| 14.6
|
|
|
| 289
| 19.8
|
|
|
| 290
| 15.4
|
|
|
| 291
| 20.1
|
|
|
| 292
| 19.7
|
|
|
| 295
| 17.4
|
|
|
| 299
| 16.7
|
|
|
| 301A
|
| 13.3
|
|
|
|
| n ( = Number included in both surveys): |
97
|
| Average change 2003 to 2004: |
0.64
|
| Standard dev.
|
|
| 1.44
|
|
| 95% Confidence interval |
|
|
| Min.=
| 0.35
|
|
|
| Max.=
| 0.92
|
| Mimimum
|
|
| -3.7
|
| Maximum
|
|
| 5.8
|
| Median
|
|
| 0.58
|
ANNEX 3
Background information
Like in 2003, all 206 clients of the Ewoi Project in Turkana (needy persons of 50 years and older) have
been invited for a 'Christmas party', including a meal, at the project centre. Also like in 2003, of all
those who attended, body weight and height was measured and a BMI was subsequently calculated. Bodyweights
were measured by a nurse; weights were recorded by another person, who was trained for this job (the same
person who carried out the measurements last year).
During the period from Monday 6th December until Thursday 9th December 184 elderly persons came to the
office. Of 136 of these height and weight could be measured. It is assumed that, like last year, the reason
why the remaining 48 have not been examined, was the fact that they were physically unable to undergo this
'examination'. (They may have been handicapped and unable to stand on the scale, or to stand straight for
the measurement of their height. Generalised tremors were reportedly also a reason for not undergoing the
weighing and measuring process.)
Nothing is known of those who were invited, but did not come. The following possibilities seem to exist in
these cases:
- the person may not have received the invitation
- the person may have died
- the person may be ill, or too weak to come to the centre alone and there was nobody to accompany him/her
- the person may be ill, or too weak to come to the centre, even when accompanied by someone else
(few instances)
- the person may have moved to a different area (rare).
|