Next Article in Journal
Sufficient Social Support as a Possible Preventive Factor against Fighting and Bullying in School Children
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Occupational Safety, Health Management and Risk Control Technology in Coal Mines
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Correction

Correction: Renzaho, A.M.N., et al. The Synergetic Effect of Targeted Resource Transfers for Families, Child Sensitive Social Protection Programs, and Capacity Building for Effective Social Protection on Children’s Nutritional Status in Nepal. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1502

1
Humanitarian and Development Studies, School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith NSW 2751, Australia
2
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne VIC 3004, Australia
3
UNICEF Nepal, Leknath Marg, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal
4
Faculty of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15(5), 869; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050869
Submission received: 12 April 2018 / Revised: 14 April 2018 / Accepted: 15 April 2018 / Published: 26 April 2018
The authors wish to add the following corrections to their paper published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [1]. During the galley proof process, the production of the paper omitted the minus sign for the 95% CI of the results section on the project’s impact on child underweight, wasting, and stunting in the abstract (p. 1) and the manuscript (p. 15).
In the abstract, the sentence regarding the result should be:
“Propensity score matched/weighted models produced better results than the unmatched analyses, and hence we report findings from the radius matching. The intervention resulted in a 5.2 (adjusted difference-in-difference [ADID] = −5.16; 95% CI: −9.55, −0.77), 7.4 (ADID: −7.35; 95% CI: −11.62, −3.08) and 2.8 (ADID = −2.84; 95% CI: −5.58, −0.10) percentage point reduction in the prevalence of stunting, underweight, and wasting among children under the age of five, respectively. The intervention impact was greater in boys than girls for stunting and wasting; and greater in girls than boys for underweight. The intervention also resulted in a 6.7 (ADID = −6.66; 95% CI: −12.13, −1.18), 11.4 (ADID = −11.4; 95% CI: −16.66, −6.13), and 4.1 (ADID = −4.10; 95% CI: −6.43, −1.78) percentage point reduction in the prevalence of stunting, underweight, and wasting among older children (≥24 months). No impact was observed among younger children (<24 months).”
The last two paragraphs in page 15 should be:
Our results suggest that the three matching estimators produced different effects on outcomes. The radius matching algorithm produced more robust results than the nearest neighbor or kernel matching estimators, and hence we report findings from the radius matching. The intervention had a positive impact on height-for-age z-scores (adjusted difference-in-difference (ADID) = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.27, p < 0.05), weight-for-age z-scores (ADID = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.19, p < 0.01), and weight-for-height z-scores (ADID = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.30, p < 0.05).
The intervention resulted in a 5.2 (ADID = −5.16; 95% CI: −9.55, −0.77), 7.4 (ADID: −7.35; 95% CI: −11.62, −3.08) and 2.8 (ADID = −2.84; 95% CI: −5.58, −0.10) percentage point reduction in the proportion of children under the age of five who were stunted, underweight and wasted respectively. Among boys, the intervention resulted in a 6.2 (ADID = −6.15; 95% CI: −11.76, −0.53) and 3.3 (ADID = −3.33; 95% CI: −6.16, −0.49) percentage point reduction in the prevalence of stunting and wasting respectively, but no impact was observed for underweight. Among girls, improvements were observed only for underweight, with a 9.0 (ADID = −9.02; 95% CI: −15.10, −2.94) percentage point reduction in the prevalence of underweight. No impact was observed for stunting or wasting. The analysis by children’s age groups revealed that the intervention resulted in a 6.7 (ADID = −6.66; 95% CI: −12.13, −1.18), 11.4 (ADID = −11.40; 95% CI: −16.66, −6.13), and 4.1 (ADID = −4.10; 95% CI: −6.43, −1.78) percentage point reduction in the prevalence of stunting, underweight, and wasting among older children (≥24 months). No impact was observed among children younger than two years (Table 4; radius matching).
We deleted the word “baseline” in Figure 1:
Figure 1. Flow diagram detailing the intervention implementation plan and data collection phases.
Figure 1. Flow diagram detailing the intervention implementation plan and data collection phases.
Ijerph 15 00869 g001
We also made some changes on Tables 2–4; therefore, the Tables should be as follows:
Table 2. Summary statistics of the matching variables and estimates of logit regression models for stage 1 of propensity score matching.
Table 2. Summary statistics of the matching variables and estimates of logit regression models for stage 1 of propensity score matching.
Matching VariablesAllInterventionControlLogit Model
BaselineFollow-UpBaselineFollow-Up
NMeanSDNMeanSDNMeanSDNMeanSDNMeanSDCoefficientSEp-Value
People per household3000 750 750 750 750
4 people or less 15.3%36.0% 13.5%34.2% 21.2%40.9% 15.3%36.1% 15.3%36.1%0.400.140.004
5–8 people 63.8%48.1% 64.8%47.8% 65.2%47.7% 60.5%48.9% 60.5%48.9%0.160.100.111
9 people or above 20.8%40.6% 21.7%41.3% 13.6%34.3% 24.1%42.8% 24.1%42.8%Ref
Household wealth index2899 724 710 731 731
Poor 60.0%49.0% 89.1%31.2% 54.2%49.9% 10.1%30.2% 10.1%30.2%2.170.130.000
Middle class 20.0%40.0% 9.7%29.6% 35.9%48.0% 23.9%42.7% 23.9%42.7%2.080.150.000
Rich 20.0%40.0% 1.2%11.1% 9.9%29.8% 65.9%47.4% 65.9%47.4%Reference
Child’s age in months300027.9815.5375028.6615.3675028.415.7175028.0815.475028.0815.40.010.000.045
Child’s gender3000 750 750 750 750
Girl 43.4%49.6% 44.8%49.8% 43.6%49.6% 43.7%49.6% 43.7%49.6%Reference
Boy 56.6%49.6% 55.2%49.8% 56.4%49.6% 56.3%49.6% 56.3%49.6%−0.080.080.322
Ethnicity3000 750 750 750 750
Disadvantage ethnic groups 0.4%6.6% 1.5%12.0% 0.1%3.7% 0.0%0.0% 0.0%0.0%2.041.040.050
Dalit Hill/Terai 21.1%40.8% 21.3%41.0% 25.5%43.6% 16.8%37.4% 16.8%37.4%0.010.100.911
Upper caste Group 78.5%41.1% 77.2%42.0% 74.4%43.7% 83.2%37.4% 83.2%37.4%Reference
Father’s education3000 750 750 750 750
Intermediate or higher 12.6%33.2% 2.1%14.5% 16.8%37.4% 5.6%23.1% 25.9%43.8%Reference
Secondary level 30.0%45.8% 33.1%47.1% 22.3%41.6% 38.3%48.6% 26.4%44.1%−0.050.140.744
Primary or less 57.4%49.5% 64.8%47.8% 60.9%48.8% 56.1%49.7% 47.7%50.0%0.270.140.052
Table 3. Evaluation of standardized differences in matched sample.
Table 3. Evaluation of standardized differences in matched sample.
InterventionComparison% Bias
UnmatchedMatchedUnmatchedMatched
No. of people per household
4 people or less0.1590.0820.1280.118−10.30
5–8 people0.6570.6640.6290.6591.20
9 people or more0.1840.2540.2430.2237.40
Household wealth index
Poor0.7170.6480.4840.683−7.40
Middle class0.2270.2750.1740.2408.80
Rich0.0560.0770.3420.0770.00
Child’s age in months28.34125.42927.47627.602−14.00
Child’s gender
Girl0.4380.3950.4290.4215.30
Boy0.5620.6050.5710.579−5.30
Ethnicity
Disadvantage ethnic groups0.0080.0010.0010.0010.00
Dalit Hill/Terai0.2240.2080.1790.212−1.00
Upper caste Group0.7680.7910.8200.7871.00
Father’s education
Primary or less0.6300.4960.5190.540−8.90
Secondary level0.2770.3780.3230.3388.70
Intermediate or higher0.0930.1270.1580.122−1.20
Table 4. Program impact on child undernutrition.
Table 4. Program impact on child undernutrition.
Original DatasetMatched Dataset: Matching Algorithms
ComparisonInterventionComparisonIntervention Kernel !Nearest Neighbor !Radius !#
N = 748N = 743N = 749N = 750ADID95% CI ADID95% CI ADID95% CI ADID95% CI
Girls a
Height77.2 (10.3)77.8 (10.9)78.7 (11.1)78.8 (11.7)0.17−0.050.400.65−0.872.180.01−1.431.450.69−0.992.36
Weight9.3 (2.4)9.3 (2.5)9.7 (2.6)9.8 (2.9)0.31 ***0.220.400.32−0.060.710.13−0.250.510.33 *0.060.6
HAZ−2.3 (1.3)−2.6 (1.4)−2.1 (1.3)−2.2 (1.3)0.21−0.010.440.11−0.060.270.07−0.180.320.15−0.060.36
WAZ−1.7 (1.0)−2.1 (1.1)−1.5 (1.1)−1.6 (1.1)0.33 ***0.230.440.17 *0.060.280.13−0.10.370.19 *0.090.29
WHZ−0.5 (0.9)−0.8 (1.1)−0.5 (1.0)−0.4 (1.0)0.31 ***0.150.460.17 *0.050.30.13−0.060.330.18−0.010.36
Stunting61.96855.561−3.98−15.447.48−2.65−9.153.85−5.07−11.781.63−4.24−10.41.93
Underweight37.153.130.834.9−16.25 ***−24.12−8.38−7.83 ***−14.39−1.26−8.89−18.961.17−9.02 ***−15.1−2.94
Wasting4.59.374.9−9.29 ***−15.86−2.72−2.62−6.331.09−3.31−8.21.58−2.47−5.90.95
Boys a
Height80.2 (11.2)80.6 (11.2)82.4 (11.2)81.6 (11.8)−0.05−1.171.060.21−1.311.740.13−1.131.390.22−0.91.35
Weight10.2 (2.6)10.2 (2.7)10.9 (2.8)10.7 (3.0)0.17−0.170.520.23−0.110.570.21−0.230.660.25−0.090.6
HAZ−2.4 (1.3)−2.6 (1.5)−2.0 (1.3)−2.2 (1.4)0.14−0.140.430.16 *00.310.08−0.170.330.22 *0.080.35
WAZ−1.7 (1.0)−2.1 (1.1)−1.4 (1.1)−1.6 (1.1)0.260.010.510.19 **0.10.290.17 *0.010.320.25 *0.080.42
WHZ−0.6 (0.9)−0.9 (1.2)−0.3 (1.1)−0.4 (1.0)0.27 ***0.080.470.21 *0.060.360.20 *0.020.380.21 *0.070.36
Stunting63.765.750.858.80.69−14.0015.37−4.14−10.482.19−1.27−10.497.95−6.15 *−11.76−0.53
Underweight37.448.827.534.8−9.74−23.383.90−5.03−11.191.13−3.39−13.456.67−6.49−13.150.16
Wasting6.615.3 ***5.96.4−9.55 ***−14.46−4.64−3.11−6.40.19−3.54−8.311.23−3.33 *−6.16−0.49
<2 years b
Height70.0 (6.5)69.6 (6.7)70.8 (7.4)69.2 (7.4)−0.28−1.160.60−0.85 *−1.67−0.02−0.91−2.450.63−0.81 *−1.6−0.02
Weight7.8 (1.5)7.5 (1.6)8.1 (1.8)7.6 (1.8)0.03−0.300.37−0.15−0.380.08−0.17−0.450.11−0.14−0.360.08
HAZ−2.0 (1.4)−2.2 (1.5)−1.6 (1.4)−1.9 (1.5)0.03−0.210.280.12−0.090.33−0.1−0.370.180.13−0.080.33
WAZ−1.5 (1.1)−2.0 (1.2)−1.2 (1.2)−1.6 (1.2)0.18−0.040.410.08−0.060.22−0.01−0.240.230.09−0.080.27
WHZ−0.6 (0.9)−1.1 (1.3)−0.5 (1.1)−0.7 (1.1)0.18−0.040.410.05−0.090.20.1−0.150.340.07−0.080.21
Stunting5258.239.850.82.76−5.1610.68−2.48−8.13.141.61−6.449.66−3.57−10.373.23
Underweight32.647.123.837.1−5.39−18.437.66−0.46−7.86.891.86−8.4212.15−1.24−8.085.6
Wasting6.718.86.810.3−9.19 ***−15.81−2.57−1.2−5.162.76−1.91−6.883.05−1.03−4.22.13
≥2 years b
Height87.1 (7.1)86.4 (7.9)88.3 (7.1)87.9 (7.6)0.53−0.121.180.41−0.181.010.59−0.451.630.74−0.161.64
Weight11.7 (1.9)11.4 (2.0)12.1 (2.0)12.1 (2.1)0.39 ***0.120.660.36 ***0.120.60.44 **0.180.690.44 ***0.250.63
HAZ−2.6 (1.1)−2.8 (1.2)−2.4 (1.1)−2.4 (1.3)0.15−0.020.310.17 *0.060.280.12−0.030.280.21 *0.060.35
WAZ−1.9 (1.0)−2.1 (1.1)−1.6 (1.0)−1.6 (1.0)0.28 ***0.120.440.28 ***0.180.370.27 **0.130.410.30 ***0.190.41
WHZ−0.5 (0.9)−0.6 (1.0)−0.3 (1.0)−0.2 (0.9)0.29 ***0.110.470.26 ***0.170.350.29 **0.120.460.27 ***0.140.4
Stunting7373.162.865.80.05−6.016.11−4.82−10.230.6−4.05−12.544.44−6.66 **−12.13−1.18
Underweight41.553.332.833.3−14.87 ***−23.27−6.46−10.45 ***−16.02−4.88−9.2−18.520.11−11.40 ***−16.66−6.13
Wasting4.98.26.12.7−8.51 ***−13.91−3.11−3.86 **−5.98−1.74−6.22 **−9.22−3.22−4.10 **−6.43−1.78
All c
Height78.9 (10.9)79.3 (11.1)80.8 (11.3)80.3 (11.9)0.11−0.510.720.42−0.681.52−0.11−1.080.860.48−0.331.28
Weight9.8 (2.6)9.8 (2.7)10.4 (2.8)10.3 (3.0)0.26 **0.050.470.27 *00.550.17−0.120.470.29−0.010.6
HAZ−2.3 (1.3)−2.6 (1.4)−2.1 (1.3)−2.2 (1.4)0.17 *0.030.310.14 *0.030.250.05−0.120.230.18 *0.090.27
WAZ−1.7 (1.0)−2.1 (1.1)−1.4 (1.1)−1.6 (1.1)0.29 ***0.150.440.19 **0.110.280.18 *0.070.290.22 **0.150.29
WHZ−0.5 (0.9)−0.8 (1.1)−0.4 (1.1)−0.4 (1.0)0.29 ***0.150.420.18 *0.090.280.24 *0.080.40.19 *0.090.3
Stunting6366.752.959.8−1.34−7.124.44−3.51−7.830.82−2.18−10.225.87−5.16 *−9.55−0.77
Underweight37.350.728.934.8−12.54 ***−19.82−5.25−6.29 ***−10.96−1.62−5.19−10.750.37−7.35 ***−11.62−3.08
Wasting5.812.76.45.7−9.32 ***−14.86−3.79−2.86 *−4.91−0.8−4.84 ***−8.62−1.06−2.84 **−5.58−0.1
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. ADID = Adjusted difference-in-differences. a Adjusted for father’s educational attainment, household wealth index, child age, caste/ethnicity, and family size; weighted with bootstrapping; b Adjusted for father’s educational attainment, household wealth index, caste/ethnicity, gender, and family size, weighted with bootstrapping; c Adjusted for father’s educational attainment, household wealth index, caste/ethnicity, gender, child age in month, and family size, weighted with bootstrapping. # Radius = 0.02; ! Weighted with bootstrapping. Z scores for height-for-age (HAZ), weight-for-age (WAZ) and weight-height (WHZ).
We apologize for any inconvenience caused to the readers by this error.

Author Contributions

This study was designed and implemented by UNICEF Nepal. A.M.N.R. carried out the analyses and drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript for intellectual contents, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Reference

  1. Renzaho, A.M.N.; Chitekwe, S.; Chen, W.; Rijal, S.; Dhakal, T.; Dahal, P. The Synergetic Effect of Cash Transfers for Families, Child Sensitive Social Protection Programs, and Capacity Building for Effective Social Protection on Children’s Nutritional Status in Nepal. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Renzaho, A.M.N.; Chitekwe, S.; Chen, W.; Rijal, S.; Dhakal, T.; Dahal, P. Correction: Renzaho, A.M.N., et al. The Synergetic Effect of Targeted Resource Transfers for Families, Child Sensitive Social Protection Programs, and Capacity Building for Effective Social Protection on Children’s Nutritional Status in Nepal. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1502. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050869

AMA Style

Renzaho AMN, Chitekwe S, Chen W, Rijal S, Dhakal T, Dahal P. Correction: Renzaho, A.M.N., et al. The Synergetic Effect of Targeted Resource Transfers for Families, Child Sensitive Social Protection Programs, and Capacity Building for Effective Social Protection on Children’s Nutritional Status in Nepal. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1502. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(5):869. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050869

Chicago/Turabian Style

Renzaho, Andre M. N., Stanley Chitekwe, Wen Chen, Sanjay Rijal, Thakur Dhakal, and Pradiumna Dahal. 2018. "Correction: Renzaho, A.M.N., et al. The Synergetic Effect of Targeted Resource Transfers for Families, Child Sensitive Social Protection Programs, and Capacity Building for Effective Social Protection on Children’s Nutritional Status in Nepal. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1502" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 5: 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050869

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop