Menu ENN Search
Language: English Français

Defaulter in moderate acute malnutrition

This question was posted the Prevention and treatment of moderate acute malnutrition forum area and has 8 replies. You can also reply via email – be sure to leave the subject unchanged.

» Post a reply

Anonymous 2391

Normal user

5 Nov 2013, 17:51

I am working in Bangladesh. Here I have observed that defaulter rate is high (12-16%). Among the different reasons one of the most important reason is that family shifted from programme area to another district where we have no intervention and if we exclude this number the defaulter rate is reduce to below 10 %. My question is that can we show this number in others items of exits category? My understanding is that we have nothing to do to address this issue.

Anonymous 635


Normal user

6 Nov 2013, 05:13

It is found almost in all settlements of nutrition programs, in flux of beneficiaries/Patients in and out with different reasons are appear through out the project life span,
Yes you have to address this situation with the possible and available reasons and we usually report them in a category Called "Moved Out" instead of defaulter if this is the situation which you have stated in your question

Hope this will help you,,,

Anonymous 2391

Normal user

6 Nov 2013, 06:22

Thanks for your reply. We already have one option of move out to another SFP/OTP site. Now what we can do? Please suggest me.

Issack Hussein

Health and Nutrition Advisor, Concern Worldwide

Normal user

6 Nov 2013, 06:59


This is also one of the main challenge where I am working. I usually consider them as defaulter. I am in a disagreement with the first reply saying consider them as 'moved out'. When we say moved out, it is internal movement meaning that beneficiaries moving from one nutrition center/district to another to continue their nutritional support and medical treatment until they reach their target weight. However, your case is different, I would say you have to continue report them as defaulter.


Anonymous 2281

Normal user

6 Nov 2013, 07:46

This are under the category of defaulters record them in option of "confirmed defaulters"

Anonymous 2391

Normal user

6 Nov 2013, 11:10

Thnaks. Again this is a concern. It has an significance impact on recovery rate but we have nothing to do. We do not have any mechanism to control this. Again I would say that keep them in separate in other category. can any one share any paper related this issue?

Sajan Das

nutrition supervisor

Normal user

6 Nov 2013, 16:32

i think we make on more option in discharge criteria (migration to an other area)

Dr. Wisal M Khan

Country Nutrition Coordinator- MERLIN

Normal user

6 Nov 2013, 17:12

Dear Anonymous 2391!

What you said, would be considered as The Reason for The Default but you cant labelled them as Moved out unless;
1) The beneficaries are moved out to another program to continue the treatment
2) The beneificaries are given the supplies for the remaining duration of their treatment because of the closure of the program
3) Return of the IDPs ( planned one) with porvision of the supplies for remaining duration
What you can do is to enhance your community outreach activities and guide all caregivers of the enrolled beneficaries to inform you before migrating from your catchment area so at least you could provide them supplements for the remaining duration of the treatment.
Hope this would help

Anonymous 2391

Normal user

7 Dec 2013, 05:09

Thanks all for feed backs.

Back to top

» Post a reply