Skip to main content

TableĀ 1 Characteristics of the total sample (nā€‰=ā€‰200) and DDS by gender in BNP East, Namibia

From: Low dietary diversity and its influencing factors among a San group in Namibia

Ā 

Total

Women (nā€‰=ā€‰111)

Men (nā€‰=ā€‰89)

P#

n

DDSa

SD

n

DDSa

SD

N

DDSa

SD

Ā 

Age

Ā 18ā€“49

144

2.5

0.72

82

2.46

0.757

62

2.55

0.67

0.377

Ā 50+

56

2.27

0.78

29

2.38

0.82

27

2.15

0.662

0.278

Education level

Ā No education

64

2.20*

0.74

39

2.28

0.826

25

2.08

0.572

0.356

Ā Low (Grade 1ā€“7)

78

2.55

0.73

50

2.5

0.735

28

2.64

0.731

0.344

Ā High (Grade 8+)

58

2.53

0.68

22

2.59

0.734

36

2.5

0.655

0.787

Employment

Ā Employed

22

2.18

0.79

8

2.13

0.991

14

2.21

0.699

0.856

Ā Unemployed

178

2.47

0.72

103

2.47

0.752

75

2.47

0.684

0.630

Incomeb

Ā Very low (US$ 0ā€“1.9/day)

148

2.43

0.73

82

2.48

0.789

66

2.38

0.651

0.681

Ā Low (US$ 1.9ā€“3.8/day)

35

2.37

0.81

21

2.29

0.784

14

2.5

0.855

0.523

Ā Medium (US$ 3.8/day+)

17

2.59

0.62

8

2.5

0.535

9

2.67

0.707

0.666

Agricultural fieldc

Ā Yes

78

2.35

0.75

40

2.25

0.742

38

2.45

0.76

0.238

Ā No

122

2.49

0.72

71

2.55

0771

51

2.41

0.638

0.431

Livestockd

Ā Yes

91

2.45

0.75

50

2.42

0.785

41

2.49

0.711

0.499

Ā No

109

2.42

0.73

61

2.46

0.765

48

2.38

0.672

0.619

  1. #P values for the comparison of men and women, calculated using Mannā€“Whitney U tests. Significant if Pā€‰<ā€‰0.05
  2. *Post-hoc test reveals that the mean DDS of the ā€˜no educationā€™ subgroup differs significantly from the other two subgroups in the total sample
  3. aData is presented as means of DDS
  4. bParticipants were classified into three groups based on monthly household income (very low, low, and medium) using the purchasing power parity equivalent of the World Bankā€™s poverty ratio of US$1.9 a day per individual
  5. cAccess to agricultural fields
  6. dAccess to livestock: goats and chickens