Exploring the paradox of Muslim advantage in undernutrition among under-5 children in India: a decomposition analysis.
Caste inequalities
Child health
Decomposition
Determinants
Religious disparity
Socioeconomic gradient
Undernutrition
Journal
BMC pediatrics
ISSN: 1471-2431
Titre abrégé: BMC Pediatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967804
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 10 2023
16 10 2023
Historique:
received:
04
02
2022
accepted:
03
10
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
17
10
2023
entrez:
16
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
While there is a substantial body of research on inequalities in child nutrition along the axes of gender and socioeconomic gradient, the socio-religious differences in health and nutrition outcomes remain grossly understudied. The handful of studies on the socio-religious differential in child health outcomes has found a Muslim advantage in chances of survival and nutritional status over Hindus despite their comparatively lower socioeconomic status, which undeniably warrants investigating the pathways through which this paradoxical Muslim advantage manifests. Using data from the National Family Health Survey, 2015-16, we quantify the inter-group differentials in child undernutrition (stunting, wasting, and underweight) between Muslims and caste-disaggregated Hindus. We further decompose the gap to delineate its major contributory factors by employing Fairlie's decomposition method. The analysis revealed that, compared to the Hindus as an aggregated group, Muslims have a higher rate of stunting and lower rates of wasting and being underweight. However, the differences get altered when we disaggregate the Hindus into high and low castes. Muslims have a lower prevalence of all three measures of undernutrition than the low-caste Hindus and a higher prevalence of stunting and underweight than the high-caste Hindus, consistent with their levels of socioeconomic status. However, the prevalence of wasting among Muslim children is lower than among high-caste Hindus. This nutritional advantage is paradoxical because Muslims' relatively poorer socioeconomic status compared to high-caste Hindus should have disadvantaged them. In the decomposition analysis, the Muslim advantage over the low-caste Hindus could only be partially attributed to the former's better economic status and access to sanitation. Moreover, the poor performance of Muslim children compared to the high-caste Hindus in stunting and underweight could mainly be explained by the religious differentials in birth order, mother's education, and wealth index. However, Muslim children's comparatively better performance in wasting than the high-caste Hindus remained a puzzle. The Muslim advantage over high-caste Hindus in wasting and low-caste Hindus in all the indicators of undernutrition may have been rendered by certain 'unobserved' behavioural and cultural differences. However, further exploration is needed to make a definitive claim in this respect.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
While there is a substantial body of research on inequalities in child nutrition along the axes of gender and socioeconomic gradient, the socio-religious differences in health and nutrition outcomes remain grossly understudied. The handful of studies on the socio-religious differential in child health outcomes has found a Muslim advantage in chances of survival and nutritional status over Hindus despite their comparatively lower socioeconomic status, which undeniably warrants investigating the pathways through which this paradoxical Muslim advantage manifests.
METHODS
Using data from the National Family Health Survey, 2015-16, we quantify the inter-group differentials in child undernutrition (stunting, wasting, and underweight) between Muslims and caste-disaggregated Hindus. We further decompose the gap to delineate its major contributory factors by employing Fairlie's decomposition method.
RESULTS
The analysis revealed that, compared to the Hindus as an aggregated group, Muslims have a higher rate of stunting and lower rates of wasting and being underweight. However, the differences get altered when we disaggregate the Hindus into high and low castes. Muslims have a lower prevalence of all three measures of undernutrition than the low-caste Hindus and a higher prevalence of stunting and underweight than the high-caste Hindus, consistent with their levels of socioeconomic status. However, the prevalence of wasting among Muslim children is lower than among high-caste Hindus. This nutritional advantage is paradoxical because Muslims' relatively poorer socioeconomic status compared to high-caste Hindus should have disadvantaged them. In the decomposition analysis, the Muslim advantage over the low-caste Hindus could only be partially attributed to the former's better economic status and access to sanitation. Moreover, the poor performance of Muslim children compared to the high-caste Hindus in stunting and underweight could mainly be explained by the religious differentials in birth order, mother's education, and wealth index. However, Muslim children's comparatively better performance in wasting than the high-caste Hindus remained a puzzle.
CONCLUSION
The Muslim advantage over high-caste Hindus in wasting and low-caste Hindus in all the indicators of undernutrition may have been rendered by certain 'unobserved' behavioural and cultural differences. However, further exploration is needed to make a definitive claim in this respect.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37845616
doi: 10.1186/s12887-023-04345-y
pii: 10.1186/s12887-023-04345-y
pmc: PMC10578034
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
515Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Q J Econ. 2011;126(3):1485-1538
pubmed: 22148132
Lancet. 2008 Jan 19;371(9608):243-60
pubmed: 18207566
PLoS One. 2010 Jul 02;5(7):e11424
pubmed: 20625399
Cad Saude Publica. 2016 Feb;32(2):e00011215
pubmed: 26958818
J Family Community Med. 2020 Jan-Apr;27(1):1-7
pubmed: 32030072
Int J Equity Health. 2010 Aug 11;9:19
pubmed: 20701758
Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(2):140-5
pubmed: 12756980
BMC Pediatr. 2019 Mar 20;19(1):83
pubmed: 30894145
Soc Sci Med. 2011 Aug;73(4):576-585
pubmed: 21798638
Indian J Community Med. 2018 Oct-Dec;43(4):279-283
pubmed: 30662180
Int J Equity Health. 2019 Dec 27;18(1):203
pubmed: 31881899
Bull World Health Organ. 1995;73(4):443-8
pubmed: 7554015
Econ Polit Wkly. 2012 Mar 12;46(11):40-49
pubmed: 22736803
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2002 Oct;50(5):441-51
pubmed: 12471337
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Feb 23;118(8):
pubmed: 33602815
BMC Public Health. 2020 Mar 27;20(1):399
pubmed: 32220224
J Health Econ. 2010 Mar;29(2):191-204
pubmed: 19969383
Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72(4):569-79
pubmed: 7923536
J Biosoc Sci. 2009 Jan;41(1):57-76
pubmed: 18471339
J Health Popul Nutr. 2022 May 12;41(1):19
pubmed: 35550656
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Jul 11;2(2):e000206
pubmed: 29081994
BMC Public Health. 2017 Aug 1;18(1):74
pubmed: 28764669
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Feb 08;4(1):e001175
pubmed: 30899561
J Prev Med Public Health. 2008 Jul;41(4):232-40
pubmed: 18664729
Lancet. 2016 Jan 30;387(10017):475-90
pubmed: 26869575
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1813-1850
pubmed: 27665228
Econ Hum Biol. 2015 Apr;17:177-89
pubmed: 25499239
Am J Hum Biol. 2019 Jan;31(1):e23153
pubmed: 30450778
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 05;11(7):e0158308
pubmed: 27379521
Popul Dev Rev. 2010;36(4):655-92
pubmed: 21174865
BMC Pediatr. 2012 Jun 21;12:80
pubmed: 22721431