Menu ENN Search
Language: English Français

Post a reply: Why prevalence using MUAC is not useful as trigger level for humaniterian response?

Use of en-net is subject to the Terms and Conditions.

My question is specific to pastoral population. Rearches documents indicated that the prevalence of acute malnutrition using both WFH and MUAC gives similar estmate for agrarian population whereas for pastoral population both estimates differently where WFH overestamate. in nutrition surveys, It is common to see GAM prevalence of WFH more than 20% with MUAC below 10%. if this is so, can we use prevalence using MUAC to define the magnitude of the problem for pastoral population? if so, is there agreed category (treshold) for the level of the problem? The other qustion, is there any research done to look at the outcomes of low WFH Vis-à-vis low MUAC? outcomes i mean is morbidity and mortality.
To add a URL link click the chain button within the editor and enter a URL
Please give your real name

Your email will not be displayed on the website
Optional

Your question will be manually approved before it appears on the website. We reserve the right to delete any inappropriate messages.