Explore › Intervention › High food group frequency
Intervention

High food group frequency

Also known as: High food group frequency (high FGFS score, consuming 4 food groups on 4+ days/week) for HIV-exposed infants aged 6-24 months
3 findings 1 paper 4 related entities View in graph →

Related entities

conditions
Stunting1
outcomes
Time-to-Treatment1
populations
Children1
studys
PMC56545261

Findings (27)

None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Low food group frequency scores were associated with higher risk of stunting and underweight compared to high FGFS, after adjusting for confounders. Stepwise regression showed FGFS drove the associati

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting); CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22

Size: HR: 1.70 (low vs high, stunting) CI: 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22
PMC5654526
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →

Papers (1)