Background: Food insecurity remains highly prevalent in developing countries and over the past two decades it has increasingly been recognized as a serious public health problem, including in Ethiopia. An emerging body of literature links food insecurity to a range of negative health outcomes and causes of a decline in productivity. The objectives of the present study were to determine the level of food insecurity in East Gojjam zone where the productive safety net program is available, and in West Gojjam zone where there is no program, and to identify the determinants of food insecurity in both East and West Gojjam zones of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Methods: Community based comparative cross-sectional study design was used from 24 May 2013- 20 July 2013. Multistage sampling technique was implemented. A total of 4110 randomly selected households in two distinct populations were approached to be included in the study. Availability and absence of the productive safety net program between the two study areas was used to categorize them as comparative groups; otherwise the two communities are comparable in many socio-cultural characteristics. The household food security access scale questionnaire, developed by the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistant Project, was used to measure food security level. Socio-demographic and other household level information were collected by using a structured questionnaire. The binary logistic regression model was used to assess factors associated with food insecurity. Results: From the total 4110 households, 3964 (96.45 %) gave complete responses. The total prevalence of food insecurity was 55.3 % (95 % CI: 53.8, 56.8). To compare food insecurity levels between the two zones, nearly sixty percent, 59.2 % (95 % CI: 57 %, 61.4 %) of the East Gojjam and 51.3 % (95 % CI: 49.1 %, 53.5) of West Gojjam households were food insecure. Family size (2-4) (AOR = 0.641, 95 % CI: 0.513, 0.801), non-merchant women (AOR = 1.638, 95 % CI: 1.015, 2.643), household monthly income quartiles, 1st (AOR = 2.756, 95 % CI: 1.902, 3.993), and 2nd (AOR =1.897, 95 % CI: 1.299, 2.775) were the significant socio-demographic determinants in east Gojjam zone. Illiterate mothers (AOR = 1.388, 95 % CI: 1.011, 1.905), household monthly income quartiles, 1st (AOR = 3.110232, 95 % CI: 2.366, 4.415), 2nd (AOR =2.618, 95 % CI: 1.892, 3.622) and 3rd (AOR = 2.177, 95 % CI: 1.6911, 2.803) were the significant socio-demographic predictors in west Gojjam zone. Rural residential area (AOR = 3.201, 95 % CI: 1.832, 5.594) and (AOR = 2.425, 95 % CI: 1.79, 3.272), highland agro-ecology (AOR = 2.193, 95 % CI: 1.348, 3.569 and AOR = 3.669, 95 % CI: 2.442, 5.513) and lack of livestock (AOR = 1.553, 95 % CI: 1.160, 2.078 and AOR = 1.568 95 % CI: 1.183, 2.080) were significant environmental predictors in east and west Gojjam zones respectively. Conclusion: Food insecurity is highly prevalent in both study areas; however, there are different predictor factors. Intervention strategies should give emphasis to women’s education, diversified income generating opportunities, and for each agro-ecological zone, mixed agriculture strategy.
The study was conducted in Amhara Regional State which covers some 157,647 km2 across north western and eastern Ethiopia and has a total population of 20,018,999 (10,011,795 males and 10,007,204 females) from 24 May 2013- 20 July 2013 [24, 25]. The region is divided in to a number of highland areas separated by deep river valleys, and the eastern and western escarpments and their associated lowlands [25]. Specifically the study was conducted in the east and west Gojjam zones of the region. East Gojjam zone, which is located in the northwest 300 km distance from Addis Ababa, has 2,451,959 total population (1,199,952 males and 1,252,006 females). West Gojjam zone, which is located in the same direction at 385 km from Addis Ababa, has a total population of 2,474,254 (1,220,477 males and 1,253,777 females) [24]. The mean annual temperature of the region ranges from 22-27OC in the lowlands and between 10 and 22OC in the highlands up to 3,000 meter above sea level [25]. The long term mean annual rainfall of the region is 1165.2 mm [26]. However areas in the specific study sites received 1100 to 1360 mm of mean annual rainfall per year [26]. Within the region four major cereal systems have been recognized: sorghum-maize system in the lowland agro-ecological zone, wheat-teff system in the single rain season area of the mid-land agro-ecological zone, wheat-teff system in the double rain seasons of the mid-land agro-ecological zone and barley system in the high land agro-ecological zone [25]. Community based comparative cross-sectional study design was used to determine the level of food insecurity and its determinants. Households in the study area were used as a sampling unit and all the necessary data were drawn from the mother in the household. The two groups were classified based on the availability of the productive safety net program; Group 1 with the productive safety net program and Group 2 without the productive safety net program. The current study used a sample size determined for another larger study that aimed to see the association between food insecurity and malnutrition. Although the study concerns for stunting, wasting and underweight, the prevalence of stunting has been taken to determine the sample size as it is considered to be the best feature of nutritional status of the community and also since it is not affected by acute events. The 2011 EDHS national prevalence (44 %) has been taken as the malnutrition prevalence for food surplus area and 50 %, which is the worst, for food insecure area as there is no specific study for this area. The study is designed to show the difference at the significance level of 1 % and power of 90 %. Where, P1 is the prevalence of stunting in Ethiopian children underfive; Therefore, the sample size will be; n = 2055 households for each Therefore the sample size was 2050 for each (4110 total). This sample was compared with the sample that was determined for food insecurity objectives that was calculated using StatCal of Epi Info utility with P = 50 % (the possible maximum sample size) and a precision level of 0.02. The sample was found to be 2396 (1198 for each category) at 95 % confidence level. Multistage sampling technique was implemented to reach and select the final study units. In the first place the two zones (east and west Gojjam) were selected purposely by taking into account the availability and absence of the productive safety net program in the two zones. This is because areas covered by the productive safety net program are considered as food insecure (the three districts in east Gojjam zone in this case) and west Gojjam zone is considered as a food surplus area (based on highly productive nature of the zone) by the regional government. Six districts from the two zones (three from each zone) were selected. The three districts from east Gojjam zone (Enebsie Sar Midir, Goncha Siso Enesie, and Shebel Berenta) covered by the safety net program were purposely selected. Three equal numbers of districts (Mecha, North Achefer, and Jabi Tehinan) in the west Gojjam zone were selected randomly from the total 14 districts. The two zones are more comparable in many socio-cultural characteristics than the other zones of the region. Once the districts were identified, kebeles (the smallest administrative unit in the country) from those districts with the program were selected randomly and included in the study. The kebeles were selected based on agro-ecological zones and urban rural settings. Four town kebeles, three rural high land kebeles, eleven rural mid-land kebeles, and six rural lowland kebeles were selected randomly. Then, the total sample size was divided proportionally to the kebele households. The households from these kebeles were selected using a systematic random sampling technique using household registration as a sampling frame. For the case of east Gojjam zone, safety net program registration was used as a sampling frame. The total number of households in each kebele was divided by the allocated sample size to get the sampling interval. When there was more than one mother in the same household, one mother was selected by lottery method. Structured questionnaires, adopted from different standard questionnaires [27, 28] and developed by the authors, were used to collect the data. Some of the variables adopted from the EDHS questionnaire include age of the mother, marital status, educational level, family size, occupation, household monthly income and housing conditions. Variables like household (HH) head, female authority and agro-ecological zone were prepared and included in the questionnaire by the authors. Household food security (access) information was collected by using the questionnaire adopted from the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) measurement tool which is developed by Food and Nutrition Technical Assistant Project (FANTA) [29]. The questionnaire was translated in to the local language (Amharic). Beside the translation of the questionnaire from English to Amharic and back to English, a pre-test was done on 120 subjects to check if they understood it easily or not. After the pre-test was done, a detailed demonstration was given to data collectors especially on ways how to explain the questionnaire to the respondent. Food secure – household experiences none of the food insecurity conditions, or just experiences worry, but rarely [29]. Mildly food insecure – household worries about not having enough food sometimes or often, and/or is unable to eat preferred foods, and/or eats a more monotonous diet than desired and/or some foods considered undesirable, but only rarely [29]. Moderately food insecure – household sacrifices quality more frequently, by eating a monotonous diet or undesirable foods sometimes or often, and/or has started to cut back on quantity by reducing the size of meals or number of meals, rarely or sometimes [29]. Severely food insecure – household has graduated to cutting back on meal size or number of meals often, and/or experiences any of the three most severe conditions (running out of food, going to bed hungry, or going a whole day and night without eating). In other words, any household that experiences one of these three conditions even once in the last four weeks [29]. To assure the quality of the data and to make sure that all assessment team members were able to administer the questionnaires properly, a total of five days rigorous training of enumerators and supervisors was given. Before the actual data collection work, data collectors and supervisors carried out role play practices and then had field pre-test activities. The data collectors and supervisors were university graduate BSc holders. At the end of every data collection day, each questionnaire was examined for completeness and consistency by the supervisors and the principal investigator, and pertinent feedback was given to the data collectors and supervisors. The data were coded, entered and cleaned by Epi-Info 2000 version 3.5.3 and transported to SPSS version 20. Descriptive summaries such as frequencies, proportions, percentages, mean, standard deviations and prevalence were determined. Excel was used to determine food insecurity prevalence and to identify the four categories (food secure, mildly food insecure, moderately food insecure and severely food insecure) by using IF OR/AND logical test function formula. For determinant variable identification, first bivariate logistic regression analyses were carried out to identify candidate variables for multivariate model at P-value < 0.25. Then, to identify the predictors of food insecurity variables that were significantly associated with food insecurity in the bivariate models were entered in the multivariate logistic regression model. At this step, model fitness and the presence of multicollinearity were assessed. The covariate also categorized into socio-demographic and environmental determinants. The model fitness was checked by observing the difference of the -2 log likelihood ratio between the model with only the constant and with the predictors. The significance of each predictor in the equation was also assessed by Wald statistics test at a significance level of P-value < 0.05. Few variables were excluded from the last model due to instability of the model with their presence and their high correlation (maternal occupation; hose wife versus farmer, r = 0.934).
N/A