Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the total sample (n = 200) and DDS by gender in BNP East, Namibia

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

  Total Women (n = 111) Men (n = 89) P#
n DDSa SD n DDSa SD N DDSa SD  
Age
 18–49 144 2.5 0.72 82 2.46 0.757 62 2.55 0.67 0.377
 50+ 56 2.27 0.78 29 2.38 0.82 27 2.15 0.662 0.278
Education level
 No education 64 2.20* 0.74 39 2.28 0.826 25 2.08 0.572 0.356
 Low (Grade 1–7) 78 2.55 0.73 50 2.5 0.735 28 2.64 0.731 0.344
 High (Grade 8+) 58 2.53 0.68 22 2.59 0.734 36 2.5 0.655 0.787
Employment
 Employed 22 2.18 0.79 8 2.13 0.991 14 2.21 0.699 0.856
 Unemployed 178 2.47 0.72 103 2.47 0.752 75 2.47 0.684 0.630
Incomeb
 Very low (US$ 0–1.9/day) 148 2.43 0.73 82 2.48 0.789 66 2.38 0.651 0.681
 Low (US$ 1.9–3.8/day) 35 2.37 0.81 21 2.29 0.784 14 2.5 0.855 0.523
 Medium (US$ 3.8/day+) 17 2.59 0.62 8 2.5 0.535 9 2.67 0.707 0.666
Agricultural fieldc
 Yes 78 2.35 0.75 40 2.25 0.742 38 2.45 0.76 0.238
 No 122 2.49 0.72 71 2.55 0771 51 2.41 0.638 0.431
Livestockd
 Yes 91 2.45 0.75 50 2.42 0.785 41 2.49 0.711 0.499
 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 Mann–Whitney U tests. Significant if P < 0.05
  2. *Post-hoc test reveals that the mean DDS of the ‘no education’ 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 Bank’s poverty ratio of US$1.9 a day per individual
  5. cAccess to agricultural fields
  6. dAccess to livestock: goats and chickens