Maternal Nutrition Physiology

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

In the fully adjusted linear mixed-effects model, children in the control group were significantly less likely to grow taller than those in the intervention group, after controlling for sex, birth wei

Effect: improvement; Control group associated with lower LAZ/HAZ scores (p<0.05 in mixed-effects model)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)

Children in the intervention group had significantly lower stunting prevalence (28.6%) compared with the control group (33.5%) from birth to the 13th month of follow-up in Nairobi urban slums.

Effect: improvement; 28.6% vs 33.5% stunting prevalence (intervention vs control)