Rukundo Peter M, Andreassen Bård A, Kikafunda Joyce, Rukooko Byaruhanga, Oshaug Arne, Iversen Per Ole
1Department of Human Nutrition and Home Economics,Kyambogo University,Kampala,Uganda.
3Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law,University of Oslo,0130 Oslo,Norway.
Br J Nutr. 2016 Feb 28;115(4):718-29. doi: 10.1017/S0007114515004961. Epub 2016 Jan 18.
In 2010, a landslide in Bududa, Eastern Uganda, killed about 350 people and nearly 1000 affected households were resettled in Kiryandongo, Western Uganda. A cross-sectional survey assessed household food insecurity and diet diversity among 1078 affected and controls. In Bududa, the affected had a lower adjusted mean score of food insecurity than controls - 9·2 (se 0·4) v. 12·3 (se 0·4) (P<0·01)--but higher diet diversity score (DDS) - 7·1 (se 0·1) v. 5·9 (se 0·1) (P<0·01). On controlling for disaster and covariates, recipients of relief food had higher food insecurity - 12·0 (se 0·6) v. 10·4 (se 0·3) (P=0·02)--whereas farmers had higher DDS - 6·6 (se 0·2) v. 5·6 (se 0·3) (P<0·01). Household size increased the likelihood of food insecurity (OR 1·15; 95% CI 1·00, 1·32; P<0·05) but reduced DDS (OR 0·93; 95% CI 0·87, <1·00; P=0·04). Low DDS was more likely in disaster affected (OR 4·22; 95% CI 2·65, 6·72; P<0·01) and farmers (OR 2·52; 95% CI 1·37, 4·64; P<0·01). In Kiryandongo, affected households had higher food insecurity - 12·3 (se 0·8) v. 2·6 (se 0·8) (P<0·01)--but lower DDS - 5·8 (se 0·3) v. 7·0 (se 0·3) (P=0·02). The latter reduced with increased age (OR 0·99; 95% CI 0·97, 1·00; P<0·05), lowest education (OR 0·54; 95% CI 0·31, 0·93; P=0·03), farmers (OR 0·59; 95 % CI 0·35, 0·98; P=0·04) and asset ownership (OR 0·56; 95% CI 0·39, 0·81; P<0·01). Addressing social protection could mitigate food insecurity.
2010年,乌干达东部布杜达发生山体滑坡,造成约350人死亡,近1000户受灾家庭被安置到乌干达西部的基延东戈。一项横断面调查评估了1078户受灾家庭和对照家庭的粮食不安全状况及饮食多样性。在布杜达,受灾家庭经调整后的粮食不安全平均得分低于对照家庭——9.2(标准误0.4)对12.3(标准误0.4)(P<0.01)——但饮食多样性得分更高——7.1(标准误0.1)对5.9(标准误0.1)(P<0.01)。在控制了灾害及协变量后,接受救济粮的家庭粮食不安全状况更严重——12.0(标准误0.6)对10.4(标准误0.3)(P=0.02)——而农民的饮食多样性得分更高——6.6(标准误0.2)对5.6(标准误0.3)(P<0.01)。家庭规模增加了粮食不安全的可能性(比值比1.15;95%置信区间1.00, 1.32;P<0.05),但降低了饮食多样性得分(比值比0.93;95%置信区间0.87, <1.00;P=0.04)。受灾地区(比值比4.22;95%置信区间2.65, 6.72;P<0.01)和农民家庭(比值比2.52;95%置信区间1.37, 4.64;P<0.01)的饮食多样性得分较低的可能性更大。在基延东戈,受灾家庭的粮食不安全状况更严重——12.3(标准误0.8)对2.6(标准误0.8)(P<0.01)——但饮食多样性得分较低——5.8(标准误0.3)对7.0(标准误0.3)(P=0.02)。饮食多样性得分随年龄增长(比值比0.99;95%置信区间0.97, 1.00;P<0.05)、教育程度最低(比值比0.54;95%置信区间0.31, 0.93;P=0.03)、农民身份(比值比0.59;95%置信区间0.35, 0.98;P=0.04)和资产拥有情况(比值比0.56;95%置信区间0.39, 0.81;P<0.01)而降低。加强社会保护可缓解粮食不安全状况。