Time-to-Treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07

HIV-exposed infants with low dietary diversity scores had 59% higher risk of stunting compared to those with high dietary diversity, after adjusting for confounders.

Effect: improvement; HR: 1.59 (low vs high); CI: 95% CI: 1.23, 2.07