The Livestock for Health Study: A Field Trial on Livestock Interventions to Prevent Acute Malnutrition Among Women and Children in Pastoralist Communities in Northern Kenya

BACKGROUND

Livestock-dependent communities in Africa's drylands disproportionately experience acute malnutrition, especially during drought seasons. We detail the design and implementation of the Livestock for Health (L4H) study aimed at determining the effect of providing livestock feed and nutritional counselling to prevent seasonal spikes of acute malnutrition.

METHODS

The L4H study employed a 3-arm cluster randomized controlled trial to compare households in pastoralist settings in northern Kenya receiving livestock feeds during critical dry periods, with or without nutritional counseling, with control households. Over 4 dry seasons, 2019 to 2021, the study collected data on household milk production, consumption patterns, mothers'/children's nutritional status, household socioeconomic status, herd dynamics, and human and animal health status every 6 weeks.

RESULTS

L4H recruited 1734 households, with 639, 585, and 510 households assigned to intervention arms 1 and 2 and control arm 3, respectively. From these households, 1734 women and 1748 children younger than 3 years were recruited. In total, 19 419 household visits were completed, obtaining anthropometric measures 9 times on average for each child and mother. Eighty-one households (5%) were lost from the study due to the mother's death, child's death, migration, and withdrawal for other reasons.

DISCUSSION

L4H's success in a challenging environment was possible due to strong community engagement, formative studies to inform trial design, collaboration with local authorities, and effective interdisciplinary collaboration. Subsequent manuscripts will report the study findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered October 29, 2020, and is online at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04608656).

The impact of livestock interventions on nutritional outcomes of children younger than 5 years old and women in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Nutrition-sensitive livestock interventions have the potential to improve the nutrition of communities that are dependent on livestock for their livelihoods by increasing the availability and access to animal-source foods. These interventions can also boost household income, improving purchasing power for other foods, as well as enhance determinants of health. However, there is a lack of synthesized empirical evidence of the impact and effect of livestock interventions on diets and human nutritional status in Africa.

Objective

To review evidence of the effectiveness of nutrition-sensitive livestock interventions in improving diets and nutritional status in children younger than 5 years old and in pregnant and lactating women.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting on the effect of livestock interventions on maternal and child nutrition in Africa. Data were extracted, synthesized, and summarized qualitatively. Key outcomes were presented in summary tables alongside a narrative summary. Estimation of pooled effects was undertaken for experimental studies with nutritional outcomes of consumption of animal-source foods (ASFs) and minimum dietary diversity (MDD). Fixed effects regression models and pooled effect sizes were computed and reported as odds ratios (ORs) together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

After the screening, 29 research papers were included in the review, and of these, only 4 were included in the meta-analysis. We found that nutrition-sensitive livestock interventions have a significant positive impact on the consumption of ASFs for children < 5 years (OR = 5.39; 95% CI: 4.43-6.56) and on the likelihood of meeting minimum dietary diversity (OR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.51-2.37). Additionally, the impact of livestock interventions on stunting, wasting, and being underweight varied depending on the type of intervention and duration of the program/intervention implementation. Therefore, because of this heterogeneity in reporting metrics, the pooled estimates could not be computed.

Conclusion

Nutrition-sensitive livestock interventions showed a positive effect in increasing the consumption of ASFs, leading to improved dietary diversity. However, the quality of the evidence is low, and therefore, more randomized controlled studies with consistent and similar reporting metrics are needed to increase the evidence base on how nutrition-sensitive livestock interventions affect child growth outcomes.