Skip to main content

Table 3 Cumulative recovery rate during therapeutic home treatment for SAM by study group

From: Effects of unconditional cash transfers on the outcome of treatment for severe acute malnutrition (SAM): a cluster-randomised trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Nutritional recoverya Intervention arm Control arm P value
Week 6
 Numberb 734 747  
 Number of events/child-weeks at risk 364/4000 307/3979  
 Incidence rate per 100 child-weeks (95% CI) 9.10 (8.17–10.00) 7.71 (6.85–8.58)  
 Incidence rate ratio (95% CI)c 1.18 (0.78–1.80) 1.00 (Reference) 0.414
 Unadjusted HR (95% CI) 1.21 (0.80–1.81) 1.00 (Reference) 0.372
 Adjusted HR (95% CI)d 1.20 (0.78–1.81) 1.00 (Reference) 0.184
Week 8
 Numberb 734 747  
 Number of events/child-weeks at risk 539/4592 455/4681  
 Incidence rate per 100 child-weeks (95% CI) 11.74 (10.75–12.73) 9.72 (8.83–10.61)  
 Incidence rate ratio (95% CI)c 1.18 (0.88–1.58) 1.00 (Reference) 0.128
 Unadjusted HR (95% CI) 1.29 (0.96–1.74) 1.00 (Reference) 0.084
 Adjusted HR (95% CI)d 1.29 (1.01–1.68) 1.00 (Reference) 0.027
Week 10
 Numberb 734 747  
 Number of events/child-weeks at risk 645/4874 587/5081  
 Incidence rate per 100 child-weeks (95% CI) 13.23 (12.21–14.25) 11.55 (10.62–12.49)  
 Incidence rate ratio (95% CI)c 1.14 (1.01–1.27) 1.00 (Reference) 0.039
 Unadjusted HR (95% CI) 1.27 (1.01–1.60) 1.00 (Reference) 0.046
 Adjusted HR (95% CI)d 1.28 (1.01–1.62) 1.00 (Reference) 0.011
Week 12
 Numberb 734 747  
 Number of events/child-weeks at risk 707/4970 660/5260  
 Incidence rate per 100 child-weeks (95% CI) 14.23 (13.18–15.27) 12.54 (11.59–13.50)  
 Incidence rate ratio (95% CI)c 1.15 (1.03–1.27) 1.00 (Reference) 0.020
 Unadjusted HR (95% CI) 1.34 (1.09–1.66) 1.00 (Reference) 0.026
 Adjusted HR (95% CI)d 1.35 (1.10–1.69) 1.00 (Reference) 0.007
  1. aRecovery was defined as a WHZ ≥ −1.5 (WHO Growth Standards 2006) or MUAC ≥125 mm at two consecutive visits and absence of bilateral oedema for at least 14 days
  2. bNumber of children contributing to unadjusted analysis
  3. cComputed by using a mixed-effects Poisson regression model, with health centre as random effects
  4. dFrom marginal Cox proportional hazards models where the outcome variable is time until first event and time is calendar week. 95% CIs used robust estimates of the variance to account for clustering at the health centre level, and P value was performed with the robust score test. Co-variates in the adjusted model included the household size, the IDDS score and the school achievement of the mother