Household decision-making around food in rural Tajikistan: a cross-sectional study to help extension workers in the field

  • Elizabeth A. Wood
  • Katharine McNamara
  • Agata Kowalewska
  • Nargiza Ludgate
Keywords: Decision-making, food misconceptions, gender, global health, nutrition

Abstract

This study was conducted to research and develop recommendations for gender transformative approaches that will address misconceptions around food and nutrition, and reducing barriers around dietary diversity within rural Khatlon Province, Tajikistan. Most of the population in Tajikistan live in rural areas and spend a large part of their income on food. While stunting in children under 5 years has decreased, acute malnutrition and the number of underweight children has increased. This is a qualitative, cross-sectional study that involved secondary data analysis, key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs) to gauge appropriate interventions for agricultural extension agents seeking to improve the nutritional outcomes of their communities. In February of 2017, data were collected from 4 KIIs and 15 FGDs that were stratified as mothers with young children, mothers-in-law, and husbands, across 12 different villages. Analysis of the KIIs and FGDs included NVivo software for coding and to uncover the most salient themes and characteristics from each. The participants of this study reported several misconceptions and taboos surrounding certain foods, especially during pregnancy, and food practices for children under the age of 5 years. Results also indicated a household hierarchy of decision-making surrounding food that included who buys, cooks, and decides what to buy. The findings of this study will be used as a springboard to launch gender-responsive and nutritionsensitive interventions through the local agricultural extension agents.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References


  1. Central Intelligence Agency (2017). The World Factbook. Available from: www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ti.html [cited 5 October 2017].

  2. Statistical Agency under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan – SA/Tajikistan, Ministry of Health – MOH/Tajikistan, and ICF International (2013). Tajikistan demographic and health survey 2012. Dushanbe, Tajikistan: SA/Tajikistan, MOH/Tajikistan, and ICF International.

  3. World Bank Group (2016). The World Bank – Tajikistan partnership program snapshot. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2016.

  4. United States Agency for International Development (2014). Tajikistan: Nutrition Profile. Washington, DC: USAID.

  5. United States Agency for International Development (2015). Feed the future Tajikistan. Washington, DC: USAID.

  6. World Food Programme Tajikistan (2017). Dushanbe (Tajikistan): World Food Programme. Available from: http://www1.wfp.org/countries/tajikistan [cited 1 April 2017].

  7. United States Agency of International Development (2010). Gender assessment USAID/Central Asian Republics. Washington, DC: USAID.

  8. World Bank (2013). Tajikistan – reinvigorating growth in the Khatlon oblast. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available from: documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/677671468339631289/Tajikistan-Reinvigorating-growth-in-the-Khatlon-oblast [cited 22 December 2017].

  9. Asian Development Bank (2016). Tajikistan country gender assessment. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

  10. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (2015). Labour migration from Central Asia to Russia: economic and social impact on the societies of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. OSCE Academy. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

  11. World Bank (2012). Situational analysis: Improving economic outcomes by expanding nutrition programming in Tajikistan. Dushanbe, Tajikistan: World Bank and UNICEF. (no. 69348)

  12. Chaparro C, Oot L, Sethuraman K. Overview of the nutrition situation in four countries in south and central Asia. Washington, DC: USAID FANTA III; 2014.

  13. Forman J, Damschroder L. Advances in bioethics Volume 11 empirical methods for bioethics: a primer. San Diego, CA: Elsevier; 2008. Section 2, Qualitative Content Analysis; pp. 39–62.

  14. Martin PY, Turner BA. Grounded theory and organizational research. J Appl Behav Sci 1986; 22(2): 141–57.

  15. Adrianopoli M, D’Acapito P, Ferrari M, Mistura L, Toti E, Maiani G, et al. Improving diets and nutrition: food-based approaches. Rome, Italy: CABI; 2014. Chapter 18, Optimized feeding recommendations and in-home fortification to improve iron status in infants and young children in the Republic of Tajikistan: a pilot project; pp. 230–45.

  16. Collings R, Harvey L, Hooper L, Hurst R, Brown T, Ansett J, et al. The absorption of iron from whole diets: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr 2013; 98(1): 65–81.

  17. Zepro NB. Food taboos and misconceptions among pregnant women of Shashemene District, Ethiopia, 2012. Sci J Public Health 2015; 3(3): 410–16.

  18. Ugwa EA. Nutritional practices and taboos among pregnant women attending antenatal care at general hospital in Kano, Northwest Nigeria. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2016; 6(2): 109–14.

  19. Zerfu TA, Umeta M, Baye K. Dietary habits, food taboos, and perceptions towards weight gain during pregnancy in Arsi, rural central Ethiopia: a qualitative cross-sectional study. J Health Popul Nutr 2016; 35(22). DOI: 10.1186/s41043-016-0059-8.

  20. Greenberg JA, Bell SJ, Van Ausdal W. Omega-3 Fatty Acid supplementation during pregnancy. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2008; 1(4): 162–9.

Published
2018-03-15
How to Cite
1.
Wood E, McNamara K, Kowalewska A, Ludgate N. Household decision-making around food in rural Tajikistan: a cross-sectional study to help extension workers in the field. fnr [Internet]. 2018Mar.15 [cited 2018Nov.19];620. Available from: https://foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/1330
Section
Review Articles