| Min. No. of Meals | Min. Dietary Diversity | Min. Acceptable Diet | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (CI) | P Value | OR | P Value | OR (CI) | P Value | |
| No. of social support actions | 1.14 (1.00, 1.30) | .047 | 1.07 (0.95, 1.21) | .24 | 1.06 (0.94, 1.20) | .32 |
| Study site; ref: comparison area (Mambai) | ||||||
| Father intervention area (Kitagwa) | 2.94 (0.98, 8.83) | .055 | 0.4 (0.14, 1.15) | .09 | 0.95 (0.33, 2.71) | .92 |
| Grandmother intervention area (Viguru) | 5.07 (1.56, 16.50) | .007 | 0.38 (0.13, 1.13) | .08 | 1.00 (0.35, 2.90) | .99 |
| Support * Father intervention area | 0.85 (0.73, 1.00) | .045 | 1.15 (0.98, 1.34) | .08 | 1.04 (0.90, 1.21) | .58 |
| Support * Grandmother intervention area | 0.82 (0.70, 0.97) | .02 | 1.19 (1.01, 1.40) | .04 | 1.06 (0.91, 1.23) | .48 |
Abbreviation: OR, odds ratio.The first row (number of social support actions) indicates the effect of increasing social support in all 3 study groups on the selected infant feeding practices. The second row (study site) compares the effect on infant feeding practices of the father intervention area vs. the comparison area and the grandmother intervention area vs. the comparison area, without specifically taking into account social support. The last set of rows (support * father intervention area; support * grandmother intervention area) takes into account the interaction effects of both intervention area and social support on infant feeding practices.