1. Introduction
Malnutrition among children under five remains a persistent global problem, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Malnutrition is defined as a health condition resulting from either excessive or deficient nutrients. It is therefore grouped into two broad categories: undernutrition and overnutrition [1]. Sub-forms of undernutrition include stunting (low height-for-age), wasting (low weight-for-height), and underweight (low weight-for-age). Overnutrition refers to overweight (high weight- for-age) and obesity (high weight-for-height) [2]. In Africa, the concurrence of undernutrition (characterised by stunting) and over nutrition (characterised by overweight) is not uncommon [3]. Stunting has been a pressing development challenge, with nearly 56.6 million children being stunted [3]. East African countries, such as Burundi (57.7%) and Malawi (47.7%), have the highest prevalence of stunting [4]. The prevalence of overweight in children under the age of five in middle-income countries was nearly 79% [5]. However, in Southern and Northern Africa, overweight children under five ranged between 10.6% and 13%, with the exception of countries such as Libya, where 25.4% of children under five years old were overweight in 2020 [6]. Since 2000, Africa has seen nearly a 24% increase in the percentage of children under five who are overweight [7,8].
In South Africa, child stunting and child overweight are the leading indicators of child malnutrition, with 27% of children under five still stunted and 13% overweight. These indicators are especially important given that, despite the nutrition interventions that the government has implemented, such as the child support grant [9], stunting and overweight are still staggeringly high. The situation for children has not improved much in almost three decades: 29.7% with stunting and 13.6% overweight in 1990 [3]. Additionally, in 2016, 4% of the children were both stunted and overweight [3]. This overlap is referred to as a double burden of child malnutrition [10]. The sustainable development goals (SDGs), 1: no poverty; 2: zero hunger; and 3: good health and wellbeing, are part of international plans seeking to ensure that children are well cared for [11,12,13,14,15]. The South African government has made efforts to reduce child malnutrition to ensure that SDG goals 1, 2, and 3 are achieved through its National Development Plan (NDP), which seeks to eradicate poverty and all its forms, by making provision for social grants, by introducing the National Policy on Food Security, and by providing accessible and free health care for all children under five [16].
Childcare is a pathway to early childhood development (ECD). It is critical to children’s growth and human capital [17,18]. The nutritional outcomes and the wellbeing of children under five years old depend on the care they receive, access to basic health services, and their household socioeconomic status [10,19]. The type of care that children receive has implications on their health, diet, nutrition, development, and survival. Lack of adequate care for children under five may expose them to adverse health outcomes. These include child malnutrition, which has long-term effects on future learning abilities, earning potential, morbidities, and disease patterns [4,20,21]
In South Africa, like many other low and middle-income countries, extended caregiving of children is common. It provides a foundation for children’s social security. Childcare-giving has become a shared responsibility by biological caregivers and other adults who may or may not be the biological family [22]. Furthermore, the shared responsibility in childcare-giving is due to the changing dynamics of family structures, characterised by single-parent households where a parent raises a child without a partner living with them. These changing dynamics could be due to several factors, including death, divorce or separation, and migration. A study in South Africa found that 60% of South African children have absent fathers [23]. This is defined as fathers who are alive but do not reside with their children, see them infrequently, and/or rarely give them financial support [23]. More than 40% of South African mothers are single parents [24]. At the time of our research, nearly 21.3% of children did not live with their biological caregivers and 32.7% of children lived with both caregivers [25]. Marriage rates declined by 22.5% between 2011 and 2019. Contexts such as migration and orphanhood have led to increased multigenerational family structures. These changes in family structures may contribute to decisions about the best care for the child being negotiated among family members and, in some cases, the state intervening [26,27].
Due to caregivers being employed and often having long hours at work, extended family members, day mothers, and crèches have become the most commonly available options and substitute sources of care for primary caregivers [26]. Childcare can be demanding emotionally and physically given the amount of time that goes into preparing food and nurturing children. Therefore, the environment, such as the home or the alternative environment in which the child is brought up or cared for, is critical in the child’s growth and development [26,28]. Growing evidence from the literature suggests that increasing urbanisation has led to a demand for childcare, which includes formal crèches and informal forms of childcare. The formal crèches are registered with the government, or formally registered as non-profit organisations (NPOs) or nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). They are also regulated by the government, and the regulation includes unannounced inspection visits from environmental health practitioners, which includes checks on sanitation, staff-to-child ratios, separate bathroom facilities and kitchen area, separate sick rooms, and indoor and outdoor space based on the area per child [29]. Informal caretakers who are unregistered crèches, day mothers, and extended family members care for the child outside the home setting [11]. Some studies have indicated that instability in providing childcare threatens the child’s health and nutritional outcomes [30,31].Children are a vulnerable group within society, and their health and wellbeing should be a priority.
Previous studies have focused much of their attention on childcare in the ‘home setting’. This would include a household’s socioeconomic status, living conditions, the number of people living in the home, and the primary caregiver’s characteristics. These include factors such as age, employment status, and level of education [14,19,32,33,34]. For example, if caregivers have a higher level of education, they would be knowledgeable about feeding practices and the nutritional value of different foods. A lower socioeconomic position serves as a significant risk factor impacting the household’s nutrition due to insufficient food consumption [35,36]. In addition, the notion that the immediate primary caregivers are responsible for ensuring that young children’s needs are met assumes that the home is the only place where childcare takes place. This ignores the role of secondary and multiple childcare providers. Evidence of multiple childcare arrangements in and outside the home setting is sparse, primarily because, with working caregivers, childcare may also happen outside the home setting. This study examines the relationship between exposure to secondary and multiple forms of care and child malnutrition, with a particular focus on child stunting and overweight among children.
2. Materials and Methods
This section outlines our materials and methods.
2.1. Study Design
In this study, an analysis was drawn from the National Income Dynamics Study’s (NIDS) Wave 5 data, collected in 2017. The NIDS is a nationally representative panel study that follows approximately 10,000 households and 28,000 individuals in South Africa [37]. These individuals were followed since 2008 across the whole country. The range of topics collected from the NIDS includes demographics, labour market participation, health status, education, household socioeconomic status, living conditions, and living arrangements. The first sample was enrolled in 2008. To date, five waves have been conducted. This study only analysed the cross-sectional data collected in 2017 of dyads of children under five and their mothers. This was survey data collected face-to-face using tablets loaded with the questionnaire [37]. For the children to be included in the sample, they had to have complete anthropometric figures (height, weight, and mid-upper circumference (MUAC). In the analysis of this study, data were weighted to make inferences about the South African population.
2.2. Sample Design
NIDS targeted the population from private homes and occupants in workers’ residences and convents and is not inclusive of other communal housing such as prisons, old age homes, students hostels, and hospitals [37]. The 2017 NIDS Wave 5 data used the stratified, two-stage cluster sample design to select the dwelling units to be visited. The 2003 Master Sample of 3000 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) of Statistics South Africa was used to create a sample of 400 PSUs in the first phase. Within each PSU, eight non-overlapping samples of ten or twelve dwelling units were methodically drawn to create the Master Sample. The explicit strata in the Master Sample are the 53 district councils (DCs). The sample was proportionally allocated to these 53 strata, and PSUs were selected within strata with probability proportional to size. The sample was not intended to be indicative of province-level population trends [37]. In this analysis, the structure was not considered.
The sample for this study was limited to 2966 weighted dyads of mothers aged 15–49 and their children under five with complete anthropometric data.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. The Outcome Variables: Child Health Outcomes
The outcome variable was malnutrition, as indicated by stunting and overweight children under five years of age, that is, children 0–59 months old.
Children were weighed in kilograms and had their height measured in meters by trained field workers at their homes. The field workers were employed by the South African Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU) at the University of Cape Town. Stunting was defined as height-for-age, and overweight was defined as body mass index (BMI) for age. The WHO child growth standards and the WHO AnthroPlus software were used to compute the indicators for child malnutrition [38]. Children with a z-score of ≤−2 were classified as being stunted, and children presenting with a z-score of ≥2 were classified as overweight/obese [38].
2.3.2. Main Independent Variable: Multiple Forms of Childcare
The NIDS data asked questions about who else cared for the child besides the primary caregiver [37]. In this study, the multiple forms of childcare arrangements outside the primary caregiver were classified as in the home setting or outside the home setting. At home, the child may receive care from the other parent, grandparents, and relatives/non-relatives. Outside the home setting, the child may receive care from the crèche or school.
2.3.3. Covariates
This analysis considers that multiple factors may influence children’s nutritional status. This may operate at different levels, such as the individual and household levels [10,39]. These factors may also influence whether the child is exposed to multiple caregiving or not [30]. Previous studies have argued that childcare has become a shared responsibility due to changing family dynamics, household socioeconomic status, and caregiver employment status [26,27,40]. Various data regarding children and their families were gathered as part of the NIDS study, which include changes in income, health and wellbeing, assets, and expenditure [37].
2.3.4. Caregiver- and Household-Level Variables
While certain primary caregiver characteristics may influence the multiple forms of childcare and children’s health outcomes, such as stunting, overweight, and underweight [13,41,42], this analysis included the demographic and sociodemographic variables of the mother who resided with the child. This included age, marital status, religion, ethnicity, education, employment status, and employment history (what caregivers were doing a year before the survey was conducted, such as taking care of others, in university, volunteers, retired, et cetera). The child’s household-level variables included household size, access to water, toilet type, and electricity. Some of the child’s individual-level characteristics include gender, age in months, race, disease episode, health care utilisation, and receiving multiple forms of care.
2.4. Data Analysis
Stata version 17 was used for data analysis considering the population size of 2966 dyads of mothers and their children, with a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level [43]. The main independent variable (multiple forms of childcare) is categorised as the care from the other parent, grandparents, and relatives/nonfamily caregivers and no other carer. The data were analysed at three levels: the univariate, bivariate and multivariable levels. At the univariate level, descriptive statistics of frequency distributions and percentages of independent variables were shown. At the second level, a bivariate analysis was conducted using the chi-square test to establish the strength of the relationships between the independent and dependent variables. At the third level, a multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was conducted. The selection of the independent variables was based on (1) the UNICEF’s Conceptual Framework on Causes of Undernutrition and the Nurturing Care Framework [44,45]; (2) the variables that had a strong association from the chi-square test; and (3) variables that had a strong correlation using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), a test that measures the extent of multicollinearity and identifies variables that should not be included simultaneously as independent variables in a multiple (logistic) regression function. Variables that depicted a VIF over 4 or a tolerance below 0.25 indicate that multicollinearity may exist [46], and these variables were excluded from the analysis. Firstly, Model 1 presents a univariate logistic regression, where the outcome variables were modelled with individual covariates. Secondly, Model 2 presents the multivariable binary logistic regression, which included the outcome variables and all the selected covariates, including gender, age, race, ethnicity, medical aid, child support grant, multiple forms of care, and care during the day.
3. Results
3.1. Caregiver-Level Characteristics
The summary statistics giving descriptive background information on the caregiver are presented in Table 1. A total of 2966 women aged 15–49 were surveyed. The majority were single or divorced (73.87%), had no medical aid (89.98%), had up to a secondary level of education (62.37%), or were unemployed (57.78%), and over half were Sesotho-speaking (51.35%).
3.2. Child-Level Characteristics
The child-level characteristics are reported in Table 2. The results indicated that 22.16% of the children were stunted and 16.40% were overweight. Among these children, 5.70% of the same children had concurrent stunting and overweight. In Table 2 below, regarding gender, there was a balance between female (49.86%) and male (50.14%) children of those sampled. The majority were cared for at home during the day (67.19%), received multiple care (66.96%), and received multiple forms of care from other parents (36.08%) and grandparents (21.11%). Likewise, many children were recipients of the child support grant (80.59%) and had no medical aid (93.09%).
Since more caregivers were utilising multiple childcare strategies [14]; Table 3 presents the distribution of children receiving multiple forms of childcare during the day besides care from the primary caregiver. This study found that 65.29% of children were cared for by their grandparents and were cared for at home during the day. Similarly, of the children who were cared for by the main caregiver, 69.88% were cared for at home, 22.69% attended a crèche, and 7.43% were in school.
The chi-square test of independence results show a significant association between the child’s age, stunting, and being overweight p < 0.005. Children aged 24–35 months had a higher percentage of being stunted (25.08%), and children 12–23 months had a higher percentage of being overweight (32.69%) compared to other age groups. Where the child is cared for during the day is significantly associated with stunting and overweight (p < 0.005). Children cared for at home during the day have the highest percentage of stunting (24.98%) and overweight (18.99%). However, variables such as the child support grant and medical aid were the only variables associated with child stunting, with children who are recipients of the child support grant having the highest percentages, at 23.43% and 22.99% of children with a medical aid being stunted (p < 0.005). There was no significant relationship among children receiving multiple forms of care (from other parents, grandparents, and relatives/non-relatives and no other carer), stunting (p = 0.768), and being overweight (p = 0.539).
As earlier mentioned, prior research demonstrated that child, caregiver, and family characteristics may be related to children being exposed to multiple childcare arrangements [30,40,47]. The study’s child-level variables included sex, age, race, ethnic groups, birthplace, child sickness, access to medical aid, and whether the family received a child support grant.
Table 4 presents the multivariable binary logistic regression model to account for individual child and caregiver-level predictors associated with child malnutrition. The selection of the variables in this table was guided by the reviewed literature, UNICEF Conceptual Framework of Causes of Malnutrition (1990), and the Nurturing Care Framework. Prior to fitting this model, we ran the VIF model. The mean VIF for the variables was 1.51, and the VIF values for the selected variables ranged from 1.09 to 3.39.
In this model, we found that gender, age, ethnicity, and childcare during the day were significantly associated with child stunting. Female children had 17% lower odds of being stunted than male children. Likewise, children cared for at home during the day had 77% higher odds of being stunted than children cared for at crèches or school. Socioeconomic status, such as not having medical aid, also influences child health outcomes; 90% of children without medical aid had higher odds of being stunted and 36% had lower odds of being overweight. Children aged 12–23 months had 2.3 times higher odds of stunting and 7.11 times higher odds of being overweight.
We conducted an additional multivariable binary logistic regression to determine other factors associated with child malnutrition (see Table 5 and Table 6). Table 5 only models the variables that were associated with child stunting and were statistically significant. Similarly, Table 6 models variables that were associated with overweight and were statistically significant. These were also child-level variables, as children under 5 were our group of interest.
Using a multivariable logistic regression to further examine the key factors for stunting and overweight, we found that age was significantly associated with child stunting. Children aged 12–23 months had higher odds of stunting (OR = 2.58, CI:1.60–4.14). African children had 60% higher odds of being stunted compared to children of other races. Likewise, children with no medical aid had higher odds of being stunted (OR = 2.33, CI: 1.35–4.03). Similarly, children who were recipients of the child support grant had higher odds of being stunted (OR = 1.46, CI: 1.04–2.05). Children cared for at home during the day had twice the odds of being stunted compared with children who went to schools or crèches (CI: 1.10–3.62).
Children 12–23 months had eight times higher odds of being overweight than other age groups (CI: 4.71–14.14). Likewise, children cared for at home had 3.82 times higher odds of being overweight than children at school or crèches (CI: 1.60–0.08).
4. Discussion
This study presents the findings from the 2017 Wave 5 NIDS, which tracked changes in the wellbeing of South Africans [37]. This study indicated stunting to have a higher prevalence than overweight. The reported prevalence of stunting and overweight in the current study is indicative of South Africa not having made much progress in reaching the 40% global nutrition target of reducing stunting and halting the epidemic of obesity among children by 2025 [48]. In fact, this study found the stunting and overweight result to resemble the South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (SANHANES) conducted a decade ago, demonstrating the persistence of stunting and overweight among children [49]. We also found significant differences in gender when looking at nutrition outcomes. Girls presented with lower odds of stunting compared to boys. This finding is consistent with another study conducted by Thurstans et al., a meta-analysis on 44 studies, which found stunting to be more prevalent among boys in 32 out of 38 studies [50]. Furthermore, our result nullifies the assumption that girls have a higher disadvantage in nutrition outcomes [51,52]. Age was significantly associated with stunting and overweight, with children in the age groups 12–23 and 24–36 months having the highest odds. A similar study in South Africa has attributed stunting and overweight to be caused by improper dietary supplementation after the breastfeeding period and, in some cases, continued breastfeeding unaccompanied by adequate nutritious foods [53].
The high prevalence of overweight reported in this study resonates with the rising global trends of obesity, which was previously predominantly a high-income countries’ challenge [54]. Additionally, evidence in this study points to children cared for at home having the highest risk of being overweight compared to those in schools or crèches. Some studies highlight the nutritional inadequacy of the food given to children under five in the home setting. These include a diet that is short of fruits and vegetables and includes sugar-sweetened beverages and unhealthy foods such as takeaways with excessive fats and salt [33,55]. In addition, to the diet, some studies have argued that children cared for at home were at a higher risk of obesity due to excessive screen time, parental/caregiver unemployment, poverty, and lack of nutritious foods [56,57].
In South Africa, schools and registered crèches are regulated. The finding of children who are in crèches and in schools presenting with better nutritional outcomes compared to children cared for at home is not surprising. The South African education policy exempts school fees among learners from low-income families [58,59], and there is a provision for the National School Nutrition Programme (NSNP) so that disadvantaged learners receive breakfast and lunch at the school [60,61]. Similarly, in registered crèches, children who are recipients of the child support grant (CSG) and whose caregivers qualify under the means test can benefit from the R17-a-day nutrition grant subsidy [60]. However, the same provision of exempting fee payment for crèches among low-income families is not granted because crèches are privately owned [59]. The study’s finding of over half of the children being cared for at home is evidence of the inequalities and socioeconomic disadvantages that exist among many caregivers in the country [59]. The high unemployment rate has implications in the caregiver’s ability to send children to crèches because of the lack of money to pay for crèche fees. Another study conducted in South Africa has found that the lack of childcare arrangements may restrain caregivers with young children in seeking employment [60]. Moreover, the improved nutritional outcomes associated with children attending registered crèches, studies by Maharaj and Dunn [60] and Yeleswarapu and Nallapu [61] have found that crèche attendance among children comes with added benefits for the child and the caregivers. The benefits for the child include stability, routine, socialisation, interaction, and child supervision. This helps them reach their developmental milestones. Furthermore, for the caregiver, the benefits include peace of mind when a child is in a safe and supervised environment. It also frees up time for the caregiver to seek employment and to attend job interviews [55,56]. In middle-income countries such as South Africa, a no-fee crèche would be a viable intervention, given the countries NDPs which seek to tackle poverty through providing social security [60,61].
Some studies distinguish the type of care received in formal and informal crèches. Informal crèches are often characterised by overcrowding and staffing challenges. A study performed by Atmore et al. has argued that caregivers may have various reasons for choosing by whom or where the child is cared for in their absence. Often, this decision is based on their financial means [62]. Caregivers who cannot afford formal registered crèches will send their children to informal crèches or day mothers. This is a risk factor for children being underweight, stunted, and wasted [32,63,64]. Social support networks are key in providing nurturing and care for children under five. We found that, besides the caregivers, over a quarter of children did not have multiple childcarers. Grandparents and relatives/non-family members assumed the role of providing secondary care in the absence of the primary caregiver. Social networks are also important for caregivers who are employed. In their absence, they require support from others for the care of their children, care work which may be paid or unpaid.
Socioeconomic status plays a critical role in childcare and nutritional outcomes. A study of mothers working in the informal sector reported that, to cut costs of paid care, mothers had to leave their children at home to be cared for by their siblings [65]. We also found that the majority of children were recipients of the CSG. In South Africa, being a recipient of the CSG is indicative of low socioeconomic status. To qualify for the grant, the child’s primary caregiver must receive an income of less than ZAR 48,000 a year. Therefore, high unemployment and being a recipient of the CSG may support the significant result found on child stunting. In a study conducted in South Africa, Kekana et al. found that, while the CSG was intended to enhance the child’s wellbeing, the grant money was used for multiple expenses in the household, such as paying stokvels (in the South African context, a stokvel refers to a club whose objective is savings or investments), food, water, and electricity [66]. This study also shows that children who were not receiving the CSG had 46% higher odds of receiving multiple childcare. This suggests that these children’s caregivers may require additional support in caring for them while the caregivers may be at work. In South Africa, crèches provide an essential service in childcare; however, this sector has not received the much-needed support from the government. This is inclusive of the registered crèches that are recipients of the R17-a-day nutrition grant with which the centres are not able to adequately meet their running expenses [59]. The need for crèches has been well recognised, given that, as of October 2022, there has been a proposal before parliament to make at least two years of early childhood education (creche attendance) be made compulsory before children enter grade 1. However, this proposal has vastly been made from the education and learning perspective of children and not for the nutritional outcomes of the children. Some academics have also supported the notion to make the last two years of ECD compulsory but acknowledge that it should be free, particularly for caregivers in low-income settings [67]. Given that free education is part of the children’s rights and is part of the constitution, the South African government should make crèches tuition-free given the numerous benefits that children receive (nutritional benefits, learning outcomes, and socialisation). Therefore, it is viable for middle-income countries such as South Africa to include the ECD sector in their planning and budgetary support.
With the social and economic situation manifesting in South Africa through a disproportionate burden of poverty, unemployment, low education levels, and other negative events black South Africans experience [66] this study’s results showed that African children had the highest odds of being stunted compared to children of other races. Similarly, African children are less likely to have medical aid cover and they are also the primary recipients of the CSG because of the legacy of apartheid’s racial segregation and discrimination [54] These results are echoed by Granlund and Hochfeld’s study [9], which ascertains that the child support grant reaches nearly 12 million children and has slightly ameliorated the poverty situation in South Africa. However, despite this intervention, nearly 60% of children still live in households below the upper-bound poverty line [24]. These results suggest that the legacy of apartheid and the political economy has had lasting adverse effects of inequality and food insecurity in households. Furthermore, outbreaks of epidemics such as Ebola and COVID-19 have grave implications for childhood nutrition and threaten children’s survival [68,69].
5. Limitations of This Study
The study did not measure the quality of care that the child received. Other studies have measured the childcare index by using indexes such as reading to the child, playing with the children, singing songs, and telling stories. In comparison, prior studies have indicated that the quality of parenting/caregiving predicts positive child health outcomes, including child immunisation and breastfeeding. This study did not ask the demographic description of who else cares for the child, such as the age and employment status of the secondary carer. Furthermore, while the study has assessed whether the child was sick in the past few months, it does not consider whether the child received immunisation.
6. Conclusions
In conclusion, we observe that stunting and overweight are increasing in South Africa. The income disparities among caregivers resulting from high unemployment rates in the country highlight the importance of socioeconomic status in childcare. The majority of children received multiple forms of care, and many were cared for at home during the day. The private caregiving practices in South Africa are largely unregulated and, thus, require an important policy focus that provides clear direction and caregiving by crèches. The focus of early childhood needs to target children under 5 to create opportunities for them to thrive; hence, there is a need for funding streams by government to support quality childcare in informal settings. We need practical policies to implement innovative strategies to ensure a reversal of the prevailing negative impact of childcare-giving arrangements and children’s malnutrition status in South Africa.
Conceptualisation, M.S., S.A.A. and C.O.; methodology, M.S., S.A.A. and C.O.; software, M.S.; validation, R.P. and T.T.; formal analysis, M.S.; investigation, M.S., S.A.A. and C.O.; resources, M.S.; data curation, M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.S., S.A.A., C.O., R.P. and T.T.; visualisation, R.P. and T.T.; supervision, S.A.A. and C.O.; project administration, M.S.; funding acquisition, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Approval for the study was obtained from the University of Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee (Non-medical) (H21/04/34).
Informed written consent and assent were obtained from caregivers/guardians and children, respectively.
The identified data that were used for generating the results in this manuscript can be obtained from National Income Dynamics website (
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Sociodemographic characteristics of mothers of children under five (N = 2966).
Variable | Categories | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Maternal Age | 15–24 | 497 | 16.74 |
25–29 | 604 | 20.36 | |
30–34 | 602 | 20.28 | |
35–39 | 417 | 14.06 | |
40–49 | 847 | 28.55 | |
Marital Status | Married/Living with partner | 775 | 26.13 |
Single/Divorced | 2191 | 73.87 | |
Religion | No religion | 176 | 5.92 |
Christian | 2542 | 85.71 | |
Other religion | 248 | 8.37 | |
Home language | Afrikaans/English | 583 | 19.67 |
Tshivenda/Tsonga | 120 | 4.05 | |
Nguni | 739 | 24.92 | |
Sotho | 1523 | 51.35 | |
Children ever born | 1 child | 1093 | 36.86 |
2 children | 845 | 28.48 | |
3 children | 564 | 19.02 | |
4 children | 239 | 8.07 | |
5+ children | 225 | 7.58 | |
Medical aid | Yes | 297 | 10.02 |
No | 2669 | 89.98 | |
Level of education achieved | No schooling | 81 | 2.74 |
Primary schooling | 337 | 11.35 | |
Secondary schooling | 1850 | 62.37 | |
Tertiary schooling | 698 | 23.54 | |
Employment status | Yes | 1252 | 42.22 |
No | 1714 | 57.78 | |
Current activity | Student/Other/Volunteer | 207 | 6.97 |
Sick/Home-maker | 374 | 12.61 | |
Unemployed—active | 682 | 22.98 | |
Unemployed—discouraged | 452 | 15.23 | |
Employed | 1252 | 42.22 | |
Emotional health | No depressive symptoms | 171 | 5.77 |
Depressive symptoms | 2 795 | 94.23 | |
Water sources | Water carrier/Other | 186 | 6.27 |
Public tap | 389 | 13.12 | |
Piped water at home | 2389 | 80.61 | |
Toilet type | None/Bucket | 102 | 3.44 |
Chemical/Pit-latrine | 851 | 28.72 | |
Flush toilet | 2011 | 67.84 | |
Household electricity | Yes | 2682 | 90.48 |
No | 282 | 9.52 |
Child-level characteristics (N = 2966).
Variable | Categories | Frequency (N) | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 1487 | 50.14 |
Female | 1479 | 49.86 | |
Age in months | 0–11 months | 306 | 10.31 |
12–23 months | 584 | 19.67 | |
24–35 months | 613 | 20.68 | |
36–47 months | 698 | 23.53 | |
48–59 months | 765 | 25.80 | |
Race | African | 2275 | 76.69 |
Coloured | 406 | 13.69 | |
White/Indian/Asian | 285 | 9.62 | |
Disease episode | No | 2609 | 87.98 |
Yes | 357 | 12.02 | |
Sought health care | Yes | 233 | 69.21 |
No | 103 | 30.79 | |
Reason for not seeking care | No time/Resources | 18 | 17.67 |
Already on treatment | 20 | 20.18 | |
Child is not sick enough | 63 | 62.15 | |
Childcare during the day | In school | 243 | 8.19 |
Crèche/Day mother | 730 | 24.60 | |
At home | 1994 | 67.22 | |
Receives multiple care | No | 980 | 33.04 |
Yes | 1986 | 66.96 | |
Multiple forms of care | Another parent | 1070 | 36.08 |
Grandparents | 626 | 21.11 | |
Relatives/Non-familial | 321 | 10.82 | |
No other care | 949 | 32.00 | |
Child support grant | No | 576 | 19.41 |
Yes | 2390 | 80.59 | |
Medical aid | Yes | 205 | 6.91 |
No | 2759 | 93.09 |
Proportion, with percentages, of children cared for during the day and experiencing multiple forms of childcare.
Multiple Forms of Childcare | Childcare during the Day | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
At Home | Crèche | In School | N (%) | |
Another parent | 707 (66.04%) | 276 (25.81%) | 87 (8.15%) | 1070 (100%) |
Grandparents | 409 (65.29%) | 162 (25.92%) | 55 (8.79%) | 626 (100%) |
Relatives/non-familial | 214 (66.58%) | 77 (23.94%) | 30 (9.48%) | 321 (100%) |
No other carer | 663 (69.88%) | 215 (22.69%) | 71 (7.43%) | 949 (100%) |
Total (N) | 1992 (67.16%) | 730 (24.61%) | 243 (8.19%) | 2966 (100%) |
Individual child and caregiver characteristics associated with child stunting and overweight.
Variables | Categories | Stunting (Model 1) | Overweight (Model 1) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Odds | p-Value | 95% CI | Odds | p-Value | 95% CI | ||
Ratio | Ratio | ||||||
Gender | Male (RC) | ||||||
Female | 0.83 | 0.036 * | 1.01–1.44 | 1.08 | 0.483 | 0.88–1.32 | |
Age of the child | 0–11 months | 0.88 | 0.515 | 0.59–1.30 | 4.93 | 0.000 *** | 3.16–7.69 |
12–23 months | 2.32 | 0.000 *** | 1.74–3.08 | 7.11 | 0.000 *** | 4.84–10.44 | |
24–35 months | 1.77 | 0.000 *** | 1.34–2.34 | 3.91 | 0.000 *** | 2.66–5.73 | |
36–37 months | 1.40 | 0.018 * | 1.06–1.85 | 1.74 | 0.008 ** | 1.15–2.62 | |
38–59 months (RC) | |||||||
Race | White/Asian (RC) | ||||||
African | 0.98 | 0.874 | 0.72–1.32 | 0.98 | 0.927 | 0.70–1.39 | |
Coloured | 1.07 | 0.730 | 0.74–1.53 | 0.97 | 0.875 | 0.63–1.47 | |
Child ethnic groups | Coloured (RC) | ||||||
English/Afrikaans | 1.50 | 0.149 | 0.87–2.58 | 0.99 | 0.971 | 0.50–1.97 | |
Sotho | 1.77 | 0.032 * | 1.05–2.98 | 1.25 | 0.503 | 0.65–2.41 | |
Nguni | 1.27 | 0.360 | 0.76–2.11 | 2.23 | 0.012* | 1.19–4.20 | |
Child sick 3 times | No (RC) | ||||||
Yes | 1.07 | 0.608 | 0.82–1.41 | 0.97 | 0.866 | 0.71–1.33 | |
Medical Aid | Yes (RC) | ||||||
No | 1.90 | 0.003 ** | 1.24–2.93 | 0.64 | 0.026* | 0.43–0.95 | |
Child support grant | No (RC) | ||||||
Yes | 1.06 | 0.648 | 0.83–1.35 | 0.91 | 0.488 | 0.69–1.19 | |
Multiple care | Grandparent (RC) | ||||||
Parent | 1.10 | 0.428 | 0.87–1.41 | 1.04 | 0.775 | 0.79–1.38 | |
Relatives/non-familial | 1.68 | 0.351 | 0.84–1.62 | 1.05 | 0.797 | 0.72–1.55 | |
No other care | 1.11 | 0.394 | 0.87–1.42 | 1.00 | 0.992 | 0.75–1.33 | |
Care during the day | Grade R0/1 (RC) | ||||||
Crèche/Day mother | 1.34 | 0.199 | 0.86–2.11 | 1.40 | 0.266 | 0.77–2.54 | |
At home | 1.87 | 0.005 ** | 1.21–2.88 | 1.33 | 0.334 | 0.75–2.36 | |
Employment status | Unemployed (RC) | ||||||
Employed | 1.01 | 0.910 | 0.84–1.21 | 1.11 | 0.325 | 0.90–1.38 | |
Marital status | Married (RC) | ||||||
Single/Divorced | 0.96 | 0.671 | 0.79–1.17 | 0.92 | 0.487 | 0.73–1.16 | |
Toilet type | Flush (RC) | ||||||
None/bucket | 0.63 | 0.063 | 0.39–1.02 | 0.91 | 0.721 | 0.55–1.52 | |
Chemical/Pit-latrine | 0.94 | 0.487 | 0.78–1.12 | 0.87 | 0.211 | 0.70–1.08 | |
Education level | Tertiary education (RC) | ||||||
No education | 1.36 | 0.255 | 0.80–2.29 | 1.03 | 0.935 | 0.54–1.95 | |
Primary schooling | 1.16 | 0.357 | 0.85–1.59 | 0.95 | 0.769 | 0.65–1.38 | |
Secondary education | 0.95 | 0.612 | 0.76–1.18 | 0.93 | 0.598 | 0.73–1.20 |
Reference category (RC), * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Multivariable analysis of risk factors associated with child stunting among children under five.
Variables | Child Stunting (Model 2) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Categories | Odds Ratio | p-Value | 95% CI | |
Age of the child | 0–11 months | 0.98 | 0.954 | 0.51–1.87 |
12–23 months | 2.58 | 0.000 *** | 1.60–4.14 | |
24–35 months | 1.72 | 0.016 * | 1.10–2.67 | |
36–37 months | 1.22 | 0.390 | 0.77–1.94 | |
38–59 months (RC) | ||||
Race | White/Asian (RC) | |||
African | 1.60 | 0.034 * | 1.03–2.47 | |
Coloured | 1.52 | 0.114 | 0.90–2.56 | |
Medical aid | Yes (RC) | |||
No | 2.33 | 0.003 ** | 1.35–4.03 | |
Child support grant | No (RC) | |||
Yes | 1.46 | 0.030 * | 1.04–2.05 | |
Childcare during the day | In school (RC) | |||
Crèche/Day mother | 1.24 | 0.531 | 0.64–2.40 | |
At home | 2.00 | 0.023 * | 1.10-362 |
Reference category (RC), * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Multivariable analysis of risk factors associated with child overweight among children under five.
Variables | Child Overweight (Model 2) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Categories | Odds Ratio | p-Value | 95% CI | |
Age of the child | 0–11 months | 4.81 | 0.000 *** | 2.63–8.81 |
1–23 months | 8.16 | 0.000 *** | 4.71–14.14 | |
24–35 months | 4.28 | 0.000 *** | 2.48–7.36 | |
36–37 months | 1.57 | 0.146 | 0.85–2.95 | |
38–59 months (RC) | ||||
Childcare during the day | In school (RC) | |||
Crèche/Day mother | 2.40 | 0.066 | 0.94–6.13 | |
At home | 3.82 | 0.002 ** | 1.60–9.08 |
Reference category (RC), ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
References
1. Bhattacharya, A.; Pal, B.; Mukherjee, S.; Roy, S.K. Assessment of nutritional status using anthropometric variables by multivariate analysis. BMC Public Health; 2019; 19, 1045. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7372-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31382936]
2. WHO|What Is Malnutrition? WHO. 2017; Available online: https://www.who.int/features/qa/malnutrition/en/ (accessed on 26 April 2019).
3. UNICEF. South Africa Nutrition Brief. 2020; Available online: https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/sites/unicef.org.southafrica/files/2020-07/ZAF-Nutrition-brief-2020.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2022).
4. Akombi, B.J.; Agho, K.E.; Merom, D.; Renzaho, A.M.; Hall, J.J. Child malnutrition in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis of demographic and health surveys (2006–2016). PLoS ONE; 2017; 12, e0177338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177338]
5. Ayele, B.A.; Tiruneh, S.A.; Ayele, A.A.; Zemene, M.A.; Chanie, E.S.; Hailemeskel, H.S. Prevalence and determinants of overweight/obesity among under-five children in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel analysis. BMC Pediatr.; 2022; 22, 585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-022-03645-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36209060]
6. UNICEFWHOWorld Bank. UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
7. UNICEFWHOWorld Bank. Levels and Trends in Child Malnutrition: Key Findings of the 2020 Edition of the Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18356/6ef1e09a-en]
8. WHO. Obesity and Overweight. WHO Fact Sheet 2021; Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (accessed on 15 December 2022).
9. Granlund, S.; Hochfeld, T. ‘That Child Support Grant Gives Me Powers’—Exploring Social and Relational Aspects of Cash Transfers in South Africa in Times of Livelihood Change. J. Dev. Stud.; 2019; 56, pp. 1230-1244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1650170]
10. Modjadji, P.; Madiba, S. The double burden of malnutrition in a rural health and demographic surveillance system site in South Africa: A study of primary schoolchildren and their mothers. BMC Public Health; 2019; 19, 1087. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7412-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31399048]
11. Hughes, R.C.; Kitsao-Wekulo, P.; Muendo, R.; Bhopal, S.S.; Kimani-Murage, E.; Hill, Z.; Kirkwood, B.R. Who actually cares for children in slums? Why we need to think, and do, more about paid childcare in urbanizing sub-Saharan Africa. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B; 2021; 376, 20200430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0430]
12. Crush, J.; Frayne, B.; Crush, M.M.; McLachlan, M. Rapid Urbanization and the Nutrition Transition in Southern Africa; Queen’s University: Kingston, ON, Canada, AFSUN: Cape Town, South Africa, 2011.
13. Kismul, H.; Hatløy, A.; Andersen, P.; Mapatano, M.; Van Den Broeck, J.; Moland, K.M. The social context of severe child malnutrition: A qualitative household case study from a rural area of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Int. J. Equity Health; 2015; 14, 47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12939-015-0175-x]
14. Pilarz, A.R.; Hill, H.D. Unstable and Multiple Child Care Arrangements and Young Children’s Behavior. Early Child. Res. Q.; 2014; 29, 471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.007]
15. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
16. National Planning Commission. South Africa’s Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ‘Solving Complex Challenges Together’; National Planning Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2019.
17. Black, M.M.; Walker, S.P.; Fernald, L.C.H.; Andersen, C.T.; DiGirolamo, A.M.; Lu, C.; McCoy, D.C.; Fink, G.; Shawar, Y.R.; Shiffman, J. et al. Advancing Early Childhood Development: From Science to Scale 1: Early childhood development coming of age: Science through the life course. Lancet; 2017; 389, 77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31389-7]
18. WHO. Nurturing Care for Early Child Development; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 37.
19. Mkhize, M.; Sibanda, M. A Review of Selected Studies on the Factors Associated with the Nutrition Status of Children under the Age of Five Years in South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 7973. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217973]
20. De, P.; Chattopadhyay, N. Effects of malnutrition on child development: Evidence from a backward district of India. Clin. Epidemiol. Glob. Health; 2019; 7, pp. 439-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2019.01.014]
21. Agho, K.E.; Akombi, B.J.; Ferdous, A.J.; Mbugua, I.; Kamara, J.K. Childhood undernutrition in three disadvantaged East African Districts: A multinomial analysis. BMC Pediatr.; 2019; 19, 118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1482-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31014298]
22. Wangui, E.E. Livelihood strategies and nutritional status of grandparent caregivers of AIDS orphans in Nyando District, Kenya. Qual. Health Res.; 2009; 19, pp. 1702-1715. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732309352906] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19949220]
23. Eddy, M.; Tomson-de Boor, H.; Mphaka, K. ‘SO WE ARE ATM FATHERS’: A study of absent fathers in Johannesburg, South Africa. Johannesburg 2013; Available online: https://www.uj.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/absent-fathers-full-report-2013.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022).
24. Hall, K.; Sambu, W. Income Poverty, Unemployment and Social Grants. S. Afr. Child Gauge Child. Fam. State; 2018; 27, pp. 137-143. Available online: http://www.ci.uct.ac.za/ci/child-gauge/2018 (accessed on 20 May 2021).
25. STATSSA. Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS)-Q1: 2021; STATSSA: Pretoria, South Africa, 2021.
26. Mkhwanazi, N.; Makusha, T.; Blackie, D.; Manderson, L.; Hall, K.; Huijbregts, M. Negotiating the care of children and support for caregivers. South African Child Gauge; University of Cape Town: Cape Town, South Africa, 2018.
27. Mabetha, K.; De Wet-Billings, N.C.; Odimegwu, C.O. Healthcare beliefs and practices of kin caregivers in South Africa: Implications for child survival. BMC Health Serv. Res.; 2021; 21, 486. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06357-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34022877]
28. Brady, M. The Role of Informal Childcare in Mothers’ Experiences of Care and Employment: A Qualitative Lifecourse Analysis. Life Course Res. Soc. Policies; 2018; 8, pp. 237-255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63295-7_11]
29. Republic of South Africa. National Integrated Early Childhood Development Policy 2015; Republic of South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 2015; Available online: https://www.gov.za/documents/national-integrated-early-childhood-development-policy-2015-2-aug-2016-0000 (accessed on 19 December 2022).
30. Adams, G.; Rohacek, M. Child Care Instability: Definitions, Context, and Policy Implications; Washington, DC, USA, 2010; Available online: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/29446/412278-Child-Care-Instability-Definitions-Context-and-Policy-Implications.PDF (accessed on 27 May 2022).
31. Sandstrom, H.; Huerta, S. The Negative Effects of Instability on Child Development: A Research Synthesis Low-Income Working Families; Urban Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
32. Alberdi, G.; McNamara, A.E.; Lindsay, K.L.; Scully, H.A.; Horan, M.H.; Gibney, E.R.; McAuliffe, F.M. The association between childcare and risk of childhood overweight and obesity in children aged 5 years and under: A systematic review. Eur. J. Pediatr.; 2016; 175, pp. 1277-1294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-016-2768-9]
33. Benjamin-Neelon, S.E.; Vaughn, A.E.; Tovar, A.; Østbye, T.; Mazzucca, S.; Ward, D.S. The family child care home environment and children’s diet quality. Appetite; 2018; 126, 108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.03.024]
34. Clarke, P.; Zuma, M.K.; Tambe, A.B.; Steenkamp, L.; Mbhenyane, X.G. Caregivers’ Knowledge and Food Accessibility Contributes to Childhood Malnutrition: A Case Study of Dora Nginza Hospital, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010691]
35. Cauduro, G.N.; Filho, E.J.D.M.; Silveira, N.P.; Bandeira, D.R. Direct and indirect effects of socio-economic status on child development: Is developmental parenting a relevant mediator?. Early Child Dev. Care; 2019; 191, pp. 1715-1728. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1673384]
36. Chowdhury, T.R.; Chakrabarty, S.; Rakib, M.; Saltmarsh, S.; Davis, K.A. Socio-economic risk factors for early childhood underweight in Bangladesh. Glob. Health; 2018; 14, 54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0372-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29848359]
37. Woolard, I.; Leibbrandt, M.; De Villiers, L. The South African National Income Dynamics Study: Design and Methodological Issues. Stud. Econ. Econ.; 2020; 34, pp. 7-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10800379.2010.12097207]
38. WHO. Training Course on Child Growth Assessments: WHO Child Growth Standards; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
39. Norris, S.A.; Lake, L.; Draper, C.E. Child health matters: A life course perspective. South African Child Gauge; University of Cape Town: Cape Town, South Africa, 2019.
40. Emmanuel, O.; Akinyemi, A. Changing patterns of child rearing practice in Badagry area of Lagos state: Implication for delinquent behaviour. Eur. Sci. J. March Ed.; 2012; 8, pp. 28-54.
41. Devercelli, A.; Beaton-Day, F. Better Jobs and Brighter Futures: Investing in Childcare to Build Human Capital. The World Bank. 2020; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35062 (accessed on 26 May 2022).
42. Arriagada, A.M.; Perry, J.; Rawlings, L.; Trias, J.; Zumaeta, M. Promoting Early Childhood Development through Combining Cash Transfer and Parenting Programs. Working Paper No. 8670 2018.
43. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17; StataCorp.: College Station, TX, USA, 2021.
44. UNICEF. Strategy for Improved Nutrition of Children and Women in Developing Countries; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 1013-3194.
45. UNICEFWHOThe World Bank. Nurturing Care for Early Childhood Development: A Framework for Helping Children Survive and Thrive to Transform Health and Human Potential; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
46. Miles, J. Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, September 2014; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.STAT06593]
47. Larson, N.; Ward, D.S.; Neelon, S.B.; Story, M. What role can child-care settings play in obesity prevention? A review of the evidence and call for research efforts. J. Am. Diet Assoc.; 2011; 111, pp. 1343-1362. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2011.06.007] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21872698]
48. WHO. Global Nutrition Targets 2025: Policy Brief Series (WHO/NMH/NHD/14.2); WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
49. Shisana, O.; Labadarios, D.; Rehle, T.; Simbayi, L.; Zuma, K.; Dhansay, A.; Reddy, P.; Parker, W.; Hoosain, E.; Naidoo, P. et al. The South African Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Cape Town 2013; Available online: https://hsrc.ac.za/uploads/pageNews/72/SANHANES-launch edition (online version).pdf (accessed on 23 April 2019).
50. Thurstans, S.; Opondo, C.; Seal, A.; Wells, J.; Khara, T.; Dolan, C.; Briend, A.; Myatt, M.; Garenne, M.; Sear, R. et al. Boys are more likely to be undernourished than girls: A systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in undernutrition. BMJ Glob. Health; 2020; 5, e004030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004030]
51. Oniang’o, R.; Mukudi, E. Nutrition and Gender. Nutrition: A Foundation for Development; UN ACC/SCN: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
52. FAO. Gender and Nutrition; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020.
53. Modjadji, P.; Mashishi, J. Persistent malnutrition and associated factors among children under five years attending primary health care facilities in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 7580. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207580]
54. May, J.; Witten, C.; Lake, L. South African Child Gauge 2020: Food and Nutrition Security. Cape Town 2020; Available online: www.childrencount.uct.ac.za (accessed on 18 June 2022).
55. Yue, A.; Marsh, L.; Zhou, H.; Medina, A.; Luo, R.; Shi, Y.; Zhang, L.; Kenny, K.; Rozelle, S. Nutritional Deficiencies, the Absence of Information and Caregiver Shortcomings: A Qualitative Analysis of Infant Feeding Practices in Rural China. PLoS ONE; 2016; 11, e0153385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153385]
56. Topothai, T.; Suphanchaimat, R.; Topothai, C.; Tangcharoensathien, V.; Cetthakrikul, N.; Waleewong, O. Thailand Achievement of SDG Indicator 4.2.1 on Early Child Development: An Analysis of the 2019 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 7599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137599]
57. Nayak, B.S.; Unnikrishnan, B.; George, A.; Mundkur, S.C.; Guddattu, V. Risk factors for malnutrition among preschool children in rural Karnataka: A case-control study. BMC Public Health; 2018; 18, 283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/S12889-018-5124-3]
58. Hall, K.; Monson, J. The school fee exemption policy and the national school nutrition programme. South African Child Gauge; Children’s Institute: Cape Town, South Afica, 2006.
59. Aubrey, C. Sources of inequality in South African early child development services. S. Afr. J. Child. Educ.; 2017; 7, 9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v7i1.450]
60. Maharaj, P.; Dunn, S. ‘It’s Not Easy Being a Mom Especially When You Are Unemployed’: Navigating Childcare, a Necessary Social Service in South Africa. J. Soc. Serv. Res.; 2022; 48, pp. 472-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2022.2087826]
61. Yeleswarapu, B.; Nallapu, S.S. A comparative study on the nutritional status of the pre-school children of the employed women and the unemployed women in the urban slums of Guntur. J. Clin. Diagn. Res.; 2012; 6, pp. 1718-1721. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2012/4395.2629]
62. Atmore, E.; van Niekerk, L.; Ashley-Cooper, M. Challenges Facing Early Childhood Development Sector in South Africa. 2012.
63. Madiba, S.; Chelule, P.K.; Mokgatle, M.M. Attending Informal Preschools and Daycare Centers Is a Risk Factor for Underweight, Stunting and Wasting in Children under the Age of Five Years in Underprivileged Communities in South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 2589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142589] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31330765]
64. Black, L.; Matvienko-Sikar, K.; Kearney, P.M. The association between childcare arrangements and risk of overweight and obesity in childhood: A systematic review. Obes. Rev.; 2017; 18, pp. 1170-1190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/obr.12575] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28677302]
65. Horwood, C.; Hinton, R.; Haskins, L.; Luthuli, S.; Mapumulo, S.; Rollins, N. ‘I can no longer do my work like how I used to’: A mixed methods longitudinal cohort study exploring how informal working mothers balance the requirements of livelihood and safe childcare in South Africa. BMC Womens Health; 2021; 21, 288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01425-y]
66. Kekana, M.J.; Mabapa, N.S.; Mbhenyane, X.G. Impact of the child support grant on the diet and nutritional status of children under 5 years old in Mogalakwena Municipality, Limpopo Province, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Child Health; 2020; 14, pp. 15-19.
67. Naik, S.; Dipa, K.; Smillie, S.; Clete, N. Compulsory Pre-School for SA’s Kids Should Be Free for Those Who Can’t Afford It, Say Education Experts. The Conversation, Johannesburg; 17 September 2022.
68. van der Berg, S.; Patel, L.; Bridgman, G. Food insecurity in South Africa: Evidence from NIDS-CRAM wave 5. Dev. S. Afr.; 2022; 39, pp. 722-737. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2022.2062299]
69. Vaaltein, S.; Schiller, U. Addressing multi-dimensional child poverty: The experiences of caregivers in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Child. Youth Serv. Rev.; 2017; 76, pp. 227-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.03.008]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Multiple caregiving arrangements have become common for childcare globally, and South Africa is no exception. Previous childcare studies mainly focused on the caregiver and household characteristics. Evidence on the influence of childcare on malnutrition is sparse. This study aimed to examine the relationship between exposure to secondary and multiple forms of care and child malnutrition, with a particular focus on child stunting and overweight among children. A cross-sectional study of a sample of 2966 dyads of mothers and children under five were analysed from the 2017 National Income Dynamics Study (NIDS) Wave 5. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data. The results indicated that 22.16% of the children were stunted and that 16.40% were overweight. Most children were mainly cared for at home (67.16%) during the day. Some results of the obtained multivariable analyses show that lack of being cared for in a crèche or school during the day was significantly associated with stunting (odds ratio (OR) 2; confidence interval (CI) 1.10–3.62, p < 0.05) and overweight (OR) 3.82; (CI) 1.60–9.08, p < 0.05). Furthermore, in this study, 69.88% of children who were cared for at home by the primary caregiver had no other forms of multiple care arrangements. The results showing high stunting and overweight rates among children cared for at home suggest that the government needs to look into supporting caregiver parenting. The high unemployment rates in the country highlight the importance of socioeconomic status in childcare and its implication for children’s nutritional outcomes. The study’s findings suggest the need for innovative strategies to address the challenges associated with multi-caregiving which negatively affects children’s nutritional outcomes.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Demography and Population Studies Programme, Schools of Public Health and Social Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa; Centre for Social Development in Africa, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2092, South Africa
2 Demography and Population Studies Programme, Schools of Public Health and Social Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa; Department of Demography and Social Statistics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Federal University Oye-Ekiti, Oye-Ekiti 371104, Nigeria
3 Demography and Population Studies Programme, Schools of Public Health and Social Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa