Adherence to and acceptability of home fortification with vitamins and minerals in children aged 6 to 23 months
Citation: Barros S.F., & Cardoso, M. A. Adherence to and acceptability of home fortification with vitamins and minerals in children aged 6 to 23 months: a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 2016;16(299):1-11.
Home fortification with multiple micronutrient powders (MNP) has good adherence and acceptability in infants, with higher adherence in non-daily or flexible administration regimens. Characteristics of the target population and increased diarrhea burden should be considered for planning public health programs with long term use of MNP. Acceptability of the MNP is satisfactory, when the use and perceived beneficial effects on children’s health are considered.
WHO guidelines have, since 2011, recommended home fortified foods with MNP to prevent and control anaemia during childhood. This review aimed to assess adherence to and acceptability of home fortification with MNP in complementary feeding. Seventeen articles were included, strict quality criteria were not implemented. Results showed good adherence in fortified foods with MNP, ranging from 50 % to over 90 % of the prescribed sachets. Caregivers reported side effects in 3 % to 32 % of children taking MNP in many studies; diarrhoea, vomiting, and constipation were the most common. MNP fortified foods show good adherence in infants, however side effects should be considered when planning for public long-term use in treating anaemia.
Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence the prevention and treatment of malnutrition but may not have the time, initially, to read the original report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence that is presented within it is relevant to their decision-making they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. Evidence Aid cannot be held responsible for any decisions made about prevention or treatment of malnutirition on the basis of this summary alone.
We’ve already reached tens of thousands of people with plain language summaries of systematic reviews. If you’d like to help us to continue our work, please consider a donation.
Donate with PayPal
You can also donate through the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) here. If you are based in the USA and want to make a tax-deductable donation, please donate to Evidence Aid via the British Schools and Universities Foundation.