publisher colophon
Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of Chuma na Uchizi, a livelihood intervention for people living with HIV (PLHIV) in rural Eastern Province, Zambia, on food security. The intervention included cash transfers to purchase income-generating assets, access to a savings account, and life-skills training. The study employed a non-equivalent groups design to compare intervention (n = 50) and control participants (n = 51) who were receiving outpatient care from two comparable health facilities in distinct constituencies in the same geographic area. We collected data before and after implementation of the intervention. Chuma na Uchizi improved access to food. At follow-up, the intervention group reported lower food insecurity scores compared with the control group (β = –5.65; 95% CI – 10.85 ––0.45). Livelihood programs for PLHIV are practical and may be a promising approach to address food insecurity and its adverse effects.

Key words

Evaluation studies, quasi-experiment, food security, livelihood, HIV, Zambia, cash transfer, productive assets

The number of Zambian adults living with HIV who have access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) increased by more than 25 percentage points between 2010 and 2015.1 This expanded access signifies that more than 50% of adults living with HIV are receiving ART in the country, which has an estimated national HIV prevalence of 13.3%.2,3 This expansion of ART coverage has provided lifesaving drugs to hundreds of thousands of people living with HIV (PLHIV) and contributed to a marked decline in the number of AIDS-related mortality in the country.2 However, timely HIV testing, early diagnosis, and patient adherence and retention remain key barriers to treatment success.4,5 In particular, scaling-up access to ART has presented additional challenges for economically poor PLHIV who now have access to HIV treatment but remain without adequate access to food. Studies in Zambia and elsewhere in Eastern and [End Page 349] Southern Africa have shown a high proportion of treatment-experienced PLHIV who are food-insecure.69

The substantial fraction of food-insecure PLHIV may undermine current and future efforts to increase survival of PLHIV and to eventually end HIV/AIDS. Food is vital to optimize treatment outcomes through increased absorption and bioavailability of drugs.1012 Adequate food may alleviate medication side effects, satisfy increased appetite, compensate for nutrient losses, and prevent hunger and weight loss.13,14 Alternatively, food insecurity, or lack of access to adequate, safe, and nutritious food at all times, consistently predicts adverse health outcomes, including elevated risks of morbidity and mortality.1518 Food insecurity is also associated with poor treatment outcomes, including lower CD4 count and incomplete viral suppression.1922 In addition, inadequate access to food has increasingly become a critical barrier to treatment adherence. Research in Zambia and other countries in the region has shown that food-insecure ART patients are less likely to take their medications as prescribed, more likely to delay treatment initiation, and less likely to remain in care than food-secure ART patients.6,8,2325 Non-adherence to ART, in turn, predicts adverse outcomes, including lower CD4 count,2628 virologic failure,2931 and rapid progression to AIDS and death.5,27,32

The high prevalence of food insecurity and its adverse effects on treatment success and survival have led to development and testing of different strategies to tackle inadequate access to food. In resource-limited countries, such as Zambia, interventions for food security of PLHIV include food assistance (such as nutrition supplementation and in-kind transfers through food baskets) and livelihood support.3336 Although receipt of food assistance is associated with positive outcomes, including increased access to food3739 and improved ART adherence,7,37,40 food assistance programs are not designed to tackle the underlying predictors of food insecurity in PLHIV, such as unemployment, lack of income, and limited productive assets.9,4143 Food assistance typically offers temporary access to food.

A complementary strategy to food assistance is livelihood support. Livelihood programs focus on identifying and promoting sustainable ways of achieving food security, generally through income generation and asset accumulation. Livelihood programs that are integrated with HIV treatment are designed to create more sustainable and stable access to food and to maintain positive benefits associated with having adequate food at all times by addressing underlying predictors of food insecurity. A number of livelihood programs for treatment-experienced PLHIV have been implemented in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), including in Cote d'Ivoire,44 Kenya,36,45,46 and Uganda.47 These programs, albeit a few, have demonstrated a positive effect on food security, adherence, and other health outcomes.36,47 However, to date, we are not aware of livelihood programs for PLHIV in Zambia, particularly in rural areas where more adults with HIV live3 and where food insecurity is more prevalent than in urban settings, that have been evaluated to demonstrate potential effects on food security. Although rural residents are at a higher risk of food insecurity due to their dependence on subsistence farming and crops that are vulnerable to flood and drought,48 current evidence from Zambia has come primarily from evaluation of food assistance programs in urban settings.7,40,49

The sizable overlap of food-insecure and treatment-experienced PLHIV in Zambia, [End Page 350] the undermining effect of food insecurity on the country's progress to reduce HIV incidence and efforts to eliminate HIV/AIDS, and a national policy environment that encourages integration of economic self-sufficiency and improved health for PLHIV underscore the importance and timeliness of implementing and evaluating promising livelihood strategies to increase food security and to enable long-term adherence to ART in the country. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to examine how Chuma na Uchizi (a Tumbuka phrase which means Health and Wealth), a livelihood-focused intervention for treatment-experienced PLHIV in rural Zambia, affects food security. Chuma na Uchizi was a multifaceted economic strengthening program that combined cash transfers, skills training, access to a savings account, and health education. First, Chuma na Uchizi provided cash transfers as capital to purchase income-generating assets. Second, the intervention offered skills training related to small business management and financial literacy. Third, a low-cost savings account was made available to facilitate use of financial services. Last, Chuma na Uchizi included a health education component tailored to the needs of treatment-experienced PLHIV.

Although food security is a multidimensional construct,50,51 we narrowed our focus to access (or the ability to obtain food either through one's own production or in the marketplace) because access is closely associated with economic and social resources such as income and assets.52,53 In turn, increasing economic and social resources is a core objective of livelihood assistance and other economic-strengthening programs. To our knowledge, Chuma na Uchizi was one of the first livelihood programs in rural Zambia to be evaluated and to provide evidence on the potential benefits to food security for PLHIV. Our study aims to expand what we know about the effectiveness of livelihood assistance in improving access to food and to provide initial evidence on the feasibility and efficacy of this type of intervention in Zambia, one of the countries most affected by HIV/AIDS.

Methods

Study design

We used a non-equivalent groups design, comparing access to food before and after the implementation of Chuma na Uchizi. Two comparable health facilities in Lundazi District were selected. Lumezi Mission Hospital (LMH) was assigned as the intervention site, and Lundazi District Hospital (LDH) was assigned as the control site. Instead of assigning individuals within the same health facility into intervention or control group, we chose health facilities as the unit of assignment to control for intervention diffusion and resentful demoralization. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Zambia.

Study sites and sample

Chuma na Uchizi was implemented in Lundazi District, Eastern Province. Eastern Province, one of Zambia's 10 provinces has a population of approximately 1.6 million people.54 It is the third most populous province behind Lusaka and Copperbelt. Eastern Province is predominantly rural, with 87% of the population living in rural areas.3 Most households are engaged in crop-growing or livestock and poultry-raising due to the province's predominantly rural landscape. Poverty is pervasive [End Page 351] in the province. An estimated 78% of the population is living at or below the national poverty threshold, the third highest in the country. HIV prevalence in Eastern Province was estimated at 9.3% in 2014.3

Lundazi District is the northernmost district in Eastern Province. The district has a population of 314,281 people.55 Consistent with the general pattern in the Eastern Province, agriculture is the most common livelihood. Lundazi District was selected as the study site because it is a rural and poor district with high prevalence of HIV. Lundazi District has an estimated HIV prevalence rate of 15%, which is higher than the prevalence rates for Eastern Province (9.3%) and Zambia (13.3%).3 Within Lundazi District, two health facilities were selected as project sites: LDH in Lundazi and LMH in Lumezi. In consultation with local stakeholders, LMH in Lumezi was selected as the intervention site based on the area's higher rates of poverty, absence of livelihood assistance from other organizations, and a local economy that could support and sustain micro and small enterprises.

At each health facility, we used the ART enrollment records to identify and create a list of eligible patients based on the study's inclusion criteria. The criteria included that participants were at least 18 years old; HIV positive and receiving outpatient ART and medical care at either LDH or LMH; and income-poor, which was defined as living at or below the Zambian national poverty threshold of approximately 90 USD per month.54 Participants were randomly selected from the list of eligible patients. Fifty ART patients were recruited at LMH, and 51 ART patients were recruited at LDH for a total study sample size of 101. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Description of Chuma na Uchizi

Chuma na Uchizi was a multifaceted livelihood program that was designed to provide tangible and intangible tools necessary to tackle underlying predictors of food insecurity, including limited income and assets and to improve health outcomes of PLHIV. Participants in the intervention site received: 1) cash transfers valued at 1,200 Zambian kwacha (Zk), or approximately 200 USD (details below); 2) skills training; 3) access to a savings account; and 4) health education. In addition, participants in the intervention and control sites received medication adherence counseling as part of their outpatient care.

First, the cash transfers were provided as capital to assist intervention participants in starting a small business or in building productive assets that generate income or produce food. Unlike previous livelihood programs for PLHIV that offered microloans,45,47 the cash transfers were given as a grant and no payment was expected. Cash grants were given in two installments of 700 Zk and 500 Zk. Second, intervention participants received two types of economy-focused, life-skills training: small business management and financial literacy. The training component was designed to enhance intervention participants' knowledge and skills in managing and improving profitability of their income-generating activities, while recognizing critical needs such as food and health care expenses. The small business management module included topics such as record keeping, separating business and personal money, sales and profits, losses, and using profits to meet business and personal needs. Financial literacy covered subjects related to learning about money, planning for the future, saving and various saving methods, and transacting with financial service providers, which covered key banking activities [End Page 352] (e.g., deposits and withdrawals) and financial products and services. We developed the training materials by reviewing existing training manuals, adapting appropriate topics into the local context, and consulting with local experts. The third author provided the training in a classroom setting.

Third, a low-cost savings account for small-scale entrepreneurs and lower-income individuals was opened for intervention participants. The savings account, which was offered by Zanaco (Zambia National Commercial Bank), one of Zambia's largest commercial banks, was meant: a) to extend access to financial products and services to poor PLHIV, many of whom were out of reach of formal financial institutions; b) to provide unbanked PLHIV with a secure way to set aside money for future use; and c) to promote positive saving behaviors and shape worldviews about the future. To facilitate use of financial services, the cash transfers were directly deposited into the participants' accounts.

Fourth, a health education component tailored to the needs of treatment-experienced PLHIV was included in the intervention. The health training module covered topics such as adequate food and proper nutrition, diet improvement to enhance drug efficacy, management of ARV side effects, and proper sanitation (e.g., handwashing, water safety, and personal hygiene). We used an existing health manual developed by the Ministry of Health.56 The third author also provided the training in a classroom setting.

Data collection, variables, and measures

This study used pre-and post-test survey data. Baseline data were collected between December 2014 and January 2015, or at least six months before implementation of intervention activities. Follow-up data were collected in September 2015, or three months after completion of key intervention activities. All 101 participants had baseline survey data; 80 participants were surveyed at follow-up. The baseline survey gathered data on participants' demographics and their households' social and economic characteristics, including food security. Baseline survey also included questions on psychosocial functioning, accessibility of health facilities (e.g., distance and travel time), and barriers to HIV treatment adherence. The follow-up survey collected data on food security. Clinical records were also collected to obtain ART-related information (e.g., ART start date and duration) and patient health data (e.g., weight and CD4 count).

Food insecurity

The outcome variable was measured using an adapted version of the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS).57 The HFIAS consists of nine items that ask respondents the frequency of experiencing different conditions and degrees of food insecurity within the past four weeks (or 30 days). Response options for the nine items range from 0 (never) to 3 (often). Sample HFIAS items include: how often did you or any household members have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources and how often was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your household because of lack of resources to get food? The HFIAS is a commonly-used measure of food insecurity in the literature and has been validated with low-income populations in resource-limited countries.58,59 We obtained a continuous measure of food insecurity by summing the scores for all HFIAS items.57 The higher the score, the more food insecurity the household experienced. Scores ranged from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 27. For descriptive purposes, we also calculated the household food insecurity access prevalence, or a categorical measure of the different levels of [End Page 353] household food insecurity, including food secure, and mild, moderately and severely food insecure.58

Intervention variable

A binary variable for intervention receipt was coded as 1 for intervention site participants (or LMH patients) and 0 for control site participants (or LDH patients).

Covariates

Covariates included gender (female or male), education level (primary or secondary education/higher), household size (total number of household members regardless of age), financial situation (worse or stayed the same/better), household monthly income (measured in four categories: 0–20 Zambian kwacha [Zk], 21–50 Zk, 51–500 Zk, or ≥ 501 Zk), debt (owed money or did not owe money), asset ownership, perceived stress, ART treatment duration (measured in months), medication adherence (non-adherent or adherent), and CD4 count. Asset ownership included four different types of assets: land, mode of transport, livestock, and household possessions. With the exception of landownership (owned or did not own), all asset variables were measured using asset indices.60 Finally, perceived stress was measured using the 10-item perceived stress scale (PSS).61 Consistent with prior research,62,63 we used the two-factor PSS in our analysis. The first factor is a four-item measure of perceived coping strategies. The second factor is a six-item measure of perceived mental distress.

Analysis

To evaluate the effect on food security, we performed bivariable and multivariable analyses to compare the outcomes for the intervention group with the control group. Treatment effects were examined using intention-to-treat analysis. First, we conducted bivariable tests to examine whether key baseline characteristics (including food security) were comparable between intervention and control groups. Second, we examined bivariable differences in HFIAS scores between intervention and control groups. Third, we estimated multivariable linear regression models that controlled for potential confounders to examine the effect of Chuma na Uchizi on food insecurity. For all multivariable models, the final set of covariates was selected using purposeful variable selection methods.6466 These model-building strategies were used in addition to clear and careful review of the scientific literature and to avoid over parameterization (given the study's sample size). Based on variable selection results, the final covariates included household size, financial situation, household income, asset ownership (transportation and household possessions), debt, and perceived stress (coping and distress).

Fourth, given the quasi-experimental design, we estimated the effect of the livelihood intervention on food security using the treatment effect model. The treatment effect model offers a more rigorous estimation of treatment effects using quasi-experimental data by modeling explicitly the sample selection process.6769 In our analysis, treatment effect models adjusted for heterogeneity of intervention participation by taking into consideration covariates hypothesized to affect selection bias. Based on our review of the literature, the following covariates have been shown to influence participation in livelihood activities: gender, education level, assets (landownership, ownership of transport-related assets, livestock and household possession), and treatment-related factors (such as treatment duration, medication adherence, and CD4 count).7077 All these covariates were measured at baseline, and were included in the selection equation of the treatment effect models. In addition to adjusting for heterogeneity of program participation, we controlled for potential confounders hypothesized to affect the outcome [End Page 354] variable. These covariates of food insecurity were consistent with the covariates in the multivariable linear regression model.

We also performed multiple imputation (MI) to address potential issues (such as reduction in sample size and biased parameter estimates) related to missing data. Missing data included 21% of follow-up HFIAS scores and 12% of baseline medication adherence. We conducted MI based on best practices suggested in the literature.7881 First, results of diagnostic tests suggested that the missing at random (MAR) assumption may be reasonable. Missing data are considered MAR if other variables in the dataset can be used to predict missingness on a given variable. Second, all variables in the MI model were at least minimally associated with the variables containing the missing values.78 Third, MI datasets were created by imputation using the chained equations approach.81,82 This approach does not assume multivariable normal distribution and can be used to impute different types of variables such as categorical, ordinal, and count.81 Fourth, we created our primary MI model with 20 imputed datasets.79,83 We also tested the sensitivity of results to the number of imputations by generating additional models with 5, 50, and 100 multiply imputed datasets. Last, we compared the results based on complete-case analysis and MI. Results were consistent. However, complete-case results had biased parameter estimates (i.e., larger coefficient sizes) and smaller robust standard errors compared with MI results. All analyses were conducted using Stata 14.84

Results

Sample characteristics

Table 1 lists the characteristics of study participants. Ninety-three percent of the sample experienced food insecurity during the past 30 days prior to baseline data collection. Among those who were food insecure at baseline, a high percentage (74%) was considered severely food insecure. The average baseline food insecurity (HFIAS) score was 14.42. Overall, food insecurity decreased at follow-up, or eight months after baseline. The mean follow-up HFIAS score was three points lower than the mean baseline HFIAS score. Bivariable results showed that intervention and control groups did not significantly differ on their baseline HFIAS scores, demographic characteristics, adherence, and livestock ownership. However, there was evidence that intervention and control groups significantly differed on economic and health factors, including income, asset ownership, and ART duration.

Effect on food security

Mean HFIAS score decreased from 14.43 at baseline to 11.34 at follow-up. Although both intervention and control groups reported lower HFIAS scores at follow-up, intervention participants reduced their food insecurity scores at a higher rate than control participants. Mean food insecurity score in the intervention group decreased from 15.32 at baseline to 10.21 at follow-up, or a change score of –5.10 points. On the contrary, mean food insecurity score in the control group declined from 13.55 at baseline to 13.44 at follow-up, or a change of –0.11.

Bivariable results indicated that Chuma na Uchizi significantly improved access to food. Table 2 presents the differences in HFIAS scores before and after adjustment for baseline HFIAS values. Unadjusted mean difference showed that intervention participants had significantly lower follow-up HFIAS scores than control participants. The intervention group scored 3.23 points lower on HFIAS contrasted with the control [End Page 355]

Table 1. BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF CHUMA NA UCHIZI PARTICIPANTS AND BY STUDY SITE Notes:<br/><br/>% = percentage distribution for categorical variables.<br/>M = mean for continuous variables.<br/>SD = Standard Deviation.<br/>p-values were based on two-tailed tests.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Table 1.

BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF CHUMA NA UCHIZI PARTICIPANTS AND BY STUDY SITE

Notes:

% = percentage distribution for categorical variables.
M = mean for continuous variables.
SD = Standard Deviation.
p-values were based on two-tailed tests.

Table 2. DIFFERENCES IN HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY ACCESS SCALE (HFIAS) SCORES BEFORE AND AFTER SAMPLE SELECTION *p &lt; .05 **p &lt; .01 ***p &lt; .001, two-tailed test aResults were based on multiply imputed data (m = 20). bResults were adjusted for baseline HFIAS scores. cResults were adjusted for covariates of food insecurity. dResults were adjusted for the sample selection process and covariates of the outcome variable. SE = Standard Error CI = Confidence Interval Reference group = Control group
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Table 2.

DIFFERENCES IN HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY ACCESS SCALE (HFIAS) SCORES BEFORE AND AFTER SAMPLE SELECTIONa

*p < .05

**p < .01

***p < .001, two-tailed test

aResults were based on multiply imputed data (m = 20).

bResults were adjusted for baseline HFIAS scores.

cResults were adjusted for covariates of food insecurity.

dResults were adjusted for the sample selection process and covariates of the outcome variable.

SE = Standard Error

CI = Confidence Interval

Reference group = Control group

[End Page 357] group. When results were adjusted for baseline HFIAS scores, the intervention group remained significantly less food insecure than the control group. The intervention group scored 3.77 points lower on HFIAS than the control group.

Table 2 also presents differences in HFIAS scores before and after multivariable adjustment, and Table 3 shows the full multivariable results after adjustment for potential confounders of food insecurity. Multivariable linear regression results were consistent with bivariable findings. Chuma na Uchizi had a significant, positive effect on food security. The intervention group scored 5.76 points lower on HFIAS compared with the control group.

Further, Table 2 presents the estimated differences in HFIAS scores between intervention and control groups before and after adjustments for sample selection. In addition, Table 3 lists the full results, including regression and selection equations, after adjustment of sample selection. First, selection bias appeared to be a problem because intervention and control groups were significantly different on some variables in the selection equation, including ownership of transportation assets and household possessions, and ART adherence and duration. Participants who reported owning more transport-related assets and household possessions at baseline were less likely than their counterparts with fewer assets to receive the intervention. Participants with optimal medication adherence level were less likely than participants with suboptimal adherence to receive the intervention. In addition, participants who had been on ART for longer than 19 months were more likely than their counterparts who had been on ART for 19 months or less to receive the intervention.

Second, based on the regression equation that controlled for covariates of food insecurity, Chuma na Uchizi had a significant and positive impact on food security. Intervention participants were less likely to be food insecure eight months after baseline compared with control participants. The intervention group scored 5.65 points lower on HFIAS than the control group. The comparison of treatment effect model results based on two different procedures (maximum likelihood and two-step) also showed consistent results. Treatment effect results using either ML or two-step showed that Chuma na Uchizi significantly improved food security. In addition, the observed relationships between baseline covariates and follow-up HFIAS scores were consistent with results from the multivariable linear regression model.

Comparison of different MI models

Table 4 compares treatment effect outcomes before and after adjustment of sample selection based on number of multiply imputed datasets. Overall, results were consistent across different number of multiply imputed datasets. In other words, the positive effect of the intervention on food security was not sensitive to the number of imputations. Across all models, Chuma na Uchizi had a statistically significant positive effect on food security.

Discussion

The importance of adequate food on survival and health of PLHIV has led to testing and evaluation of various strategies that promote better access to food. Although prior interventions have addressed inadequate access to food among treatment-experienced PLHIV in Zambia and elsewhere in SSA,7,33,34,39,85 most interventions reflect a biomedical [End Page 358]

Table 3. EFFECT OF CHUMA NA UCHIZI ON FOOD INSECURITY AFTER MULTIVARIABLE ADJUSTMENTa Notes: †p &lt; .10; *p &lt; .05; **p &lt; .01; ***p &lt; .001, two-tailed test. aResults were based on multiply imputed data (m = 20). bTreatment effect results were based on maximum likelihood estimates. β = coefficient robust SE = robust Standard Error 95% CI = 95% Confidence Interval
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Table 3.

EFFECT OF CHUMA NA UCHIZI ON FOOD INSECURITY AFTER MULTIVARIABLE ADJUSTMENTa

Notes:

†p < .10;

*p < .05;

**p < .01;

***p < .001, two-tailed test.

aResults were based on multiply imputed data (m = 20).

bTreatment effect results were based on maximum likelihood estimates.

β = coefficient

robust SE = robust Standard Error

95% CI = 95% Confidence Interval

approach to addressing the downstream consequences of food insecurity, particularly undernutrition and weight loss. Few published intervention studies, particularly those conducted in rural Zambia, have addressed the upstream causes of food insecurity, including lack of income, assets, and other means of livelihood. To our knowledge, Chuma na Uchizi was one of the first programs of its kind to tackle underlying predictors of food security among PLHIV who are receiving ART in rural Zambia. Chuma na Uchizi provided tangible resources to generate income, skill-building opportunities to facilitate development and maintenance of income-generating sources, and access to financial services to provide safe and secure ways to save money and plan for the future. Chuma na Uchizi was also one of the first intervention studies implemented in rural Zambia that demonstrated feasibility and positive impact of a livelihood intervention on food security for PLHIV on ART. At follow-up, intervention participants were more food secure than control participants. These positive results were consistent across various analytical models, including unadjusted, adjusted, bivariable, multivariable, and treatment effect models. In addition, our findings are consistent with prior research, including a study in Kenya by Weiser and colleagues that showed significant and positive impact of a livelihood intervention that combined agriculture and financial services on food security and frequency of food consumption.36 However, unlike prior livelihood interventions for PLHIV, Chuma na Uchizi, to our knowledge, was one of the first interventions to combine social protection with asset development (cash transfers for productive assets) through access to financial services and small business management training for PLHIV.

The positive impact of Chuma na Uchizi on food security may be attributed to a single or multiple aspects of the program. For instance, the cash transfer component might have given intervention participants a new source of cash flow that they used to purchase food. It is possible that participants set aside a portion of the cash they received to buy food and improve their consumption patterns. Because of high vulnerability [End Page 360]

Table 4. COMPARISON OF HFIAS SCORES BEFORE AND AFTER ADJUSTMENT BASED ON NUMBER OF MULTIPLY IMPUTED DATASETS †p &lt; .10 *p &lt; .05 **p &lt; .01 ***p &lt; .001, two-tailed test. aResults were adjusted for baseline HFIAS scores. bResults were adjusted for covariates of food insecurity. cResults were adjusted for the sample selection process and covariates of the outcome variable. ML = Maximum Likelihood robust SE = robust Standard Error. Reference group was the control group.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Table 4.

COMPARISON OF HFIAS SCORES BEFORE AND AFTER ADJUSTMENT BASED ON NUMBER OF MULTIPLY IMPUTED DATASETS

†p < .10

*p < .05

**p < .01

***p < .001, two-tailed test.

aResults were adjusted for baseline HFIAS scores.

bResults were adjusted for covariates of food insecurity.

cResults were adjusted for the sample selection process and covariates of the outcome variable.

ML = Maximum Likelihood

robust SE = robust Standard Error.

Reference group was the control group.

[End Page 362] of intervention participants to food insecurity as illustrated by their low incomes, it is probable that the cash transfer would improve their ability to obtain food. In addition, it is possible that improvements in food security resulted from higher income from livelihood or income-generating activities that were financed by the cash grants. Interventions participants could have used the money, as intended, to start or continue income-generating activities. It is likely that intervention participants began (or recapitalized) their income-generating activities, which were mostly retail-oriented, and produced monetary returns. Retail-oriented businesses that buy and sell goods, such as micro and small businesses—which 80% of the intervention participants reported owning—might generate income more quickly than other types of livelihood activities (e.g., farming and livestock-raising). In turn, income from these livelihood sources might have been used to obtain or purchase food.

In addition to the cash transfer component, it is possible that the life-skills training component contributed to improvements in food security for intervention participants. From the financial education and business management training, the intervention group might have learned how to set aside money and prepare a financial plan that meets household needs, as well as how to use income from livelihood activities to meet (business and) household basic needs such as food. The food and nutrition component might have also reminded participants about the importance of adequate food and proper nutrition to maintain good health and improve ART efficacy. However, our study was not able to isolate effects of individual components from other aspects of the livelihood intervention due to the study design.

Implications for research and practice

Our findings have important implications for future research and programming. Livelihood interventions, such as Chuma na Uchizi, offer a feasible and promising approach that targets malleable predictors of food security. Although a growing body of empirical evidence has shown positive effects of integrated HIV and livelihood programs on household economic viability, including improved food security, little is known about optimal combinations of intervention activities. Because there is no single, effective combination of intervention components, livelihood activities will vary from one program to another. Custom-tailoring of intervention activities may be a desirable practice as selection of program components depends on localized factors such as economic conditions, feasibility and viability of entrepreneurial ventures, and availability and access to financial services, among others. In other words, engaging local stakeholders, similar to our process of developing Chuma na Uchizi, is necessary to identify an optimal and relevant combination of livelihood activities for a particular locality. Nonetheless, livelihood interventions should be appropriate to the needs and characteristics of PLHIV, in addition to their local contexts. For instance, livelihood activities may not be appropriate for PLHIV who are severely undernourished or experiencing rapid weight loss. Similarly, labor-intensive activities may not be appropriate for PLHIV with limited strength and stamina. In addition, livelihood interventions for PLHIV should be part of a bigger framework that tackles barriers to food security at different levels. Interventions that promote improved access to food at the household or community-level may not be effective when macro-level challenges such as physical unavailability of food (for example, due to insufficient agricultural output or environmental change) and rising food prices are not addressed. [End Page 363]

Furthermore, in Zambia, a potential policy and program "entry point" for integrated HIV and livelihood interventions is illustrated in the revised National AIDS Strategic Framework. This revised framework recognizes the importance of increasing and strengthening access to programs that incorporate food security into HIV treatment and care.86 The strategic framework calls for scaling up of comprehensive interventions that address underlying determinants of food insecurity. Programs such as Chuma na Uchizi closely align with the framework's priority strategies in the areas of social protection, poverty alleviation, and livelihoods. Consistent with the motivation behind Chuma na Uchizi, the framework recognizes the value of interventions that empower individuals to develop skills and acquire resources that foster self-reliance and resilience through sustainable livelihood activities. Study results may provide timely empirical evidence to support inclusion of livelihood programs into the country's national strategy to improve HIV treatment and care.

Limitations

Our study is not without limitations, and results should be interpreted in the context of these limitations. First, the timing of follow-up data collection (eight months after baseline and three months after intervention training) might not be enough time to reveal the full range and sustainability of effects on food security. Similarly, studies with at least three data collection time points may be a more rigorous alternative than a pre-and post-intervention design. This design may help examine whether the effect on food access extends beyond the project duration, which in turn, might indicate how the cash transfers were used (e.g., to smooth consumption patterns temporarily, to invest in livelihood activities, or a combination of both). Second, we only evaluated the intervention's effect on access to food. We do not know the impact of the intervention on actual food intake or frequency of consumption. Actual food intake is equally important because of its role in improving nutrition and efficacy of HIV therapy. Similarly, HFIAS, like other food insecurity measures, primarily quantifies previous histories of food insecurity (in this case, the past 30 days) and fails to capture information pertaining to food acquisition. Forward-looking measures of access to food are needed to identify and assist individuals and households before they experience or re-experience food insecurity. Additionally, context-specific indicators to assess inadequate access to food in diverse HIV-positive populations, as well as measurement scales that recognize subcomponents of access to food such as quality, variety, safety, and socially acceptable procurement are needed to improve construct validity and to provide a more comprehensive picture of food insecurity. Third, a larger study with experimental design is needed to definitively establish causal relationships. A larger experiment should also take into account the cluster-level effects due to the clustering of ART patients within health facilities. The inclusion of only two health facilities (with little variation) limited our ability to examine intervention effects while controlling for community or health facility level variables. A larger study should also consider how best to isolate impacts of individual components from other aspects of the program. Fourth, our statistical tests are based on assumptions that might or might not have been present in the current study. For instance, the treatment effect model is useful in producing better estimates of average treatment effects if we know the predictors of selection process (in this case, participation in Chuma na Uchizi) and if we correctly [End Page 364] specify these predictors in the selection equation. When models are misspecified (i.e., when predictors are incorrect or omitted), results may be biased. To address this limitation, we reviewed the livelihood literature to identify evidence-based factors that influence livelihood participation. Lastly, the lack of qualitative data precluded our ability to better understand potential causal mechanisms in which individual components of the intervention helped participants to obtain access to food. For example, it is possible that from the financial education and business management training, the intervention group might have learned how to set aside money and prepare a financial plan that meets household needs, as well as how to use income from livelihood activities to meet basic needs such as food.

Conclusions

The increasing overlap between food-insecure and HIV-positive individuals who are receiving ART threatens future progress in increasing survival of PLHIV and ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This alarming trend requires timely interventions and indicates relevance of such interventions for a large segment of the population. Consistent with prior intervention research, our study findings suggest promising and encouraging effects of a livelihood intervention on food security. Chuma na Uchizi combined various economic strengthening components to address compounded factors associated with food insecurity, including low income, limited productive assets, inadequate training on business management, and lack of access to financial services. In addition, livelihood interventions such as Chuma na Uchizi may offer a more sustainable, holistic, and socially appropriate way to obtain food compared with other types of food security programs for PLHIV in resource-limited settings.

Rainier Masa, Gina Chowa, and Victor Nyirenda

RAINIER MASA and GINA CHOWA are both faculty at the School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. VICTOR NYIRENDA along with Dr. Masa and Dr. Chowa are all associated with the Global Social Development Innovations, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Please address all correspondence to: Rainier Masa, 325 Pittsboro Street, Campus Box 3550, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA 27599. Phone: 919.962.6531; Fax: 919.962.1698, Email: rmasa@email.unc.edu.

References

1. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Global AIDS update 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: UNAIDS, 2016. Available at: http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/global-AIDS-update-2016_en.pdf.
2. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). The gap report. Geneva, Switzerland: UNAIDS, 2014. Available at: http://files.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/unaidspublication/2014/UNAIDS_Gap_report_en.pdf.
3. Central Statistical Office [Zambia], Ministry of Health [Zambia], ICF International, Zambia demographic and health survey 2013–2014. Rockville, MD: Central Statistical Office, Ministry of Health, and ICF International, 2015.
4. Rathod SD, Chi BH, Kusanthan T, et al. Trends in all-cause mortality during the scale-up of an antiretroviral therapy programme: a cross-sectional study in Lusaka, Zambia. Bull World Health Organ. 2014 Oct 1;92(10):734–41. Epub 2014 Jun 26. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.13.134239 PMid:25378727 PMCid:PMC4208480
5. Stringer JS, Zulu I, Levy J, et al. Rapid scale-up of antiretroviral therapy at primary care sites in Zambia: feasibility and early outcomes. JAMA. 2006 Aug 16;296(7):782–93. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.7.782 PMid:16905784
6. Hong SY, Fanelli TJ, Jonas A, et al. Household food insecurity associated with anti-retroviral therapy adherence among HIV-infected patients in Windhoek, Namibia. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014 Dec 1;67(4):e115–22. [End Page 365] https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000308 PMid:25356779 PMCid:PMC4215168
7. Cantrell RA, Sinkala M, Megazinni K, et al. A pilot study of food supplementation to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy among food-insecure adults in Lusaka, Zambia. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008 Oct 1;49(2):190–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818455d2 PMid:18769349 PMCid:PMC3847664
8. Musumari PM, Wouters E, Kayembe PK, et al. Food insecurity is associated with increased risk of non-adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected adults in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2014 Jan 15;9(1):e85327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085327 PMid:24454841 PMCid:PMC3893174
9. Tsai AC, Bangsberg DR, Emenyonu N, et al. The social context of food insecurity among persons living with HIV/AIDS in rural Uganda. Soc Sci Med. 2011 Dec;73(12):1717–24. Epub 2011 Oct 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.026 PMid:22019367 PMCid:PMC3221802
10. Bartelink IH, Savic RM, Mwesigwa J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir and efavirenz in food insecure HIV-infected pregnant and breastfeeding women in Tororo, Uganda. J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Feb;54(2):121–32. Epub 2013 Sep 21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.167 PMid:24038035 PMCid:PMC3933454
11. Nerad J, Romeyn M, Silverman E, et al. General nutrition management in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Apr 1;36(Suppl 2):S52–62. https://doi.org/10.1086/367559 PMid:12652372
12. Raiten DJ. Nutrition and pharmacology: general principles and implications for HIV. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Dec;94(6):1697S–702S. Epub 2011 Nov 16. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.019109 PMid:22089445 PMCid:PMC3225603
13. Seume-Fosso E, Rajabiun S, Cogill B. HIV/AIDS: a guide for nutritional care and support. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance, 2004.
14. Piwoz EG, Preble EA. HIV/AIDS and nutrition: a review of the literature and recommendations for nutritional care and support in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: Support for Analysis and Research in Africa Project, Academy for Educational Development, 2000.
15. de Pee S, Semba RD. Role of nutrition in HIV infection: review of evidence for more effective programming in resource-limited settings. Food Nutr Bull. 2010 Dec;31(4):S313–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/15648265100314S403
16. Koethe JR, Blevins M, Bosire C, et al. Self-reported dietary intake and appetite predict early treatment outcome among low-BMI adults initiating HIV treatment in sub-Saharan Africa. Public Health Nutr. 2013 Mar;16(3):549–58. Epub 2012 Jun 13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980012002960 PMid:22691872 PMCid:PMC3772135
17. Rawat R, McCoy SI, Kadiyala S. Poor diet quality is associated with low CD4 count [End Page 366] and anemia and predicts mortality among antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-positive adults in Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013 Feb 1;62(2):246–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182797363 PMid:23117502
18. Weiser SD, Fernandes KA, Brandson EK, et al. The association between food insecurity and mortality among HIV-infected individuals on HAART. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009 Nov 1;52(3):342–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181b627c2 PMid:19675463 PMCid:PMC3740738
19. Kalichman SC, Hernandez D, Kegler C, et al. Dimensions of poverty and health outcomes among people living with HIV infection: limited resources and competing needs. J Community Health. 2015 Aug;40(4):702–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-014-9988-6 PMid:25572901 PMCid:PMC4490984
20. Kalichman SC, Cherry C, Amaral C, et al. Health and treatment implications of food insufficiency among people living with HIV/AIDS, Atlanta, Georgia. J Urban Health. 2010 Jul;87(4):631–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9446-4 PMid:20419478 PMCid:PMC2900577
21. Feldman MB, Alexy ER, Thomas JA, et al. The association between food insufficiency and HIV treatment outcomes in a longitudinal analysis of HIV-infected individuals in New York City. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 Jul 1;69(3):329–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000596 PMid:25751230
22. Aibibula W, Cox J, Hamelin A, et al. Food insecurity and low CD4 count among HIV-infected people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Care. 2016 Dec;28(12): 1577–1585. Epub 2016 Jun 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2016.1191613 PMid:27306865
23. Singer AW, Weiser SD, McCoy SI. Does food insecurity undermine adherence to antiretroviral therapy? A systematic review. AIDS Behav. 2015 Aug;19(8):1510–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-014-0873-1 PMid:25096896
24. Weiser SD, Young SL, Cohen CR, et al. Conceptual framework for understanding the bidirectional links between food insecurity and HIV/AIDS. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Dec;94(6):1729S–39S. Epub 2011 Nov 16. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.012070 PMid:22089434 PMCid:PMC3226026
25. Young S, Wheeler AC, McCoy SI, et al. A review of the role of food insecurity in adherence to care and treatment among adult and pediatric populations living with HIV and AIDS. AIDS Behav. 2014 Oct;18 Suppl 5:S505–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0547-4 PMid:23842717 PMCid:PMC3888651
26. Abrogoua DP, Kablan BJ, Kamenan BA, et al. Assessment of the impact of adherence and other predictors during HAART on various CD4 cell responses in resource-limited settings. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;6:227–37. Epub 2012 Mar 23. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S26507 PMid:22536059 PMCid:PMC3333809 [End Page 367]
27. Chi BH, Cantrell RA, Zulu I, et al. Adherence to first-line antiretroviral therapy affects non-virologic outcomes among patients on treatment for more than 12 months in Lusaka, Zambia. Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Jun;38(3):746–56. Epub 2009 Feb 17. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyp004 PMid:19223334 PMCid:PMC2689395
28. Wood E, Hogg RS, Yip B, et al. The impact of adherence on CD4 cell count responses among HIV-infected patients. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004 Mar 1;35(3):261–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00126334-200403010-00006 PMid:15076240
29. Bangsberg DR, Hecht FM, Charlebois ED, et al. Adherence to protease inhibitors, HIV-1 viral load, and development of drug resistance in an indigent population. AIDS. 2000 Mar 10;14(4):357–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-200003100-00008 PMid:10770537
30. Paredes R, Lalama CM, Ribaudo HJ, et al. Pre-existing minority drug-resistant HIV-1 variants, adherence, and risk of antiretroviral treatment failure. J Infect Dis. 2010 Mar; 201(5):662–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/650543
31. Spacek LA, Shihab HM, Kamya MR, et al. Response to antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients attending a public, urban clinic in Kampala, Uganda. Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Jan 15;42(2):252–9. Epub 2005 Dec 12. https://doi.org/10.1086/499044 PMid:16355337
32. Bangsberg DR, Perry S, Charlebois ED, et al. Non-adherence to highly active anti-retroviral therapy predicts progression to AIDS. AIDS. 2001 Jun 15;15(9):1181–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-200106150-00015 PMid:11416722
33. Aberman NL, Rawat R, Drimie S, et al. Food security and nutrition interventions in response to the AIDS epidemic: assessing global action and evidence. AIDS Behav. 2014 Oct;18 Suppl 5:S554–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-014-0822-z PMid:24943352
34. Tirivayi N, Groot W. Health and welfare effects of integrating AIDS treatment with food assistance in resource constrained settings: a systematic review of theory and evidence. Soc Sci Med. 2011 Sep;73(5):685–92. Epub 2011 Jul 23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.056 PMid:21824702
35. Audain KA, Zotor FB, Amuna P, et al. Food supplementation among HIV-infected adults in sub-Saharan Africa: impact on treatment adherence and weight gain. Proc Nutr Soc. 2015 Nov;74(4):517–25. Epub 2015 Mar 12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665115000063 PMid:25761769
36. Weiser SD, Bukusi EA, Steinfeld RL, et al. Shamba Maisha: Randomized controlled trial of an agricultural and finance intervention to improve HIV health outcomes. AIDS. 2015 Sep 10;29(14):1889–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000781 PMid:26214684 PMCid:PMC4573846
37. de Pee S, Grede N, Mehra D, et al. The enabling effect of food assistance in improving [End Page 368] adherence and/or treatment completion for antiretroviral therapy and tuberculosis treatment: a literature review. AIDS Behav. 2014 Oct;18(Suppl 5):S531–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-014-0730-2 PMid:24619602
38. Ndirangu M, Sztam K, Sheriff M, et al. Perceptions of food-insecure HIV-positive adults participating in a food supplementation program in central Kenya. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014 Nov;25(4):1763–83. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2014.0153 PMid:25418241
39. Rawat R, Faust E, Maluccio JA, et al. The impact of a food assistance program on nutritional status, disease progression, and food security among people living with HIV in Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014 May 1;66(1):e15–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000079 PMid:24326603
40. Tirivayi N, Koethe JR, Groot W. Clinic-based food assistance is associated with increased medication adherence among HIV-infected adults on long-term antiretroviral therapy in Zambia. J AIDS Clin Res. 2012;3(7):171. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6113.1000171 PMid:23227443 PMCid:PMC3515057
41. Nagata JM, Magerenge RO, Young SL, et al. Social determinants, lived experiences, and consequences of household food insecurity among persons living with HIV/AIDS on the shore of Lake Victoria, Kenya. AIDS Care. 2012;24(6):728–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2011.630358 PMid:22150119 PMCid:PMC4418445
42. McCoy SI, Ralph LJ, Njau PF, et al. Food insecurity, socioeconomic status, and HIV-related risk behavior among women in farming households in Tanzania. AIDS Behav. 2014 Jul 1;18(7):1224–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0629-3 PMid:24097335 PMCid:PMC3977025
43. Bukusuba J, Kikafunda JK, Whitehead RG. Food security status in households of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in a Ugandan urban setting. Br J Nutr. 2007 Jul 1;98(1):211–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114507691806 PMid:17381879
44. Holmes K, Winskell K, Hennink M, et al. Microfinance and HIV mitigation among people living with HIV in the era of anti-retroviral therapy: emerging lessons from Cote d'Ivoire. Glob Public Health. 2011;6(4):447–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2010.515235 PMid:20936558
45. Pandit JA, Sirotin N, Tittle R, et al. Shamba maisha: a pilot study assessing impacts of a micro-irrigation intervention on the health and economic wellbeing of HIV patients. BMC Public Health. 2010 May 11;10:245. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-245 PMid:20459841 PMCid:PMC2877674
46. Datta D, Njuguna J. Microcredit for people affected by HIV and AIDS: insights from Kenya. SAHARA J. 2008 Jul;5(2):94–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/17290376.2008.9724906 PMid:18709212 [End Page 369]
47. Wagner G, Rana Y, Linnemayr S, et al. A qualitative exploration of the economic and social effects of microcredit among people living with HIV/AIDS in Uganda. AIDS Res Treat. 2012;2012:318957. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/318957
48. Kodamaya S. Agricultural policies and food security of smallholder farmers in Zambia. African Study Monographs. 2011;S42:19–39.
49. Zulu RM, Byrne NM, Munthali GK, et al. Assessing the impact of a food supplement on the nutritional status and body composition of HIV-infected Zambian women on ARVs. BMC Public Health. 2011 Sep 21;11:714. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-714 PMid:21936938 PMCid:PMC3188494
50. Maxwell S, Frankenberger T. Household food security: concepts, indicators, measurements. a technical review. New York, NY: UNICEF, 1992.
51. Webb P, Coates J, Frongillo EA, et al. Measuring household food insecurity: why it's so important and yet so difficult to do. J Nutr. 2006 May;136(5):1404S–1408S. PMid:16614437
52. Barrett CB. Measuring food insecurity. Science. 2010 Feb 12;327(5967):825–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182768 PMid:20150491
53. Sen A. Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1981.
54. Central Statistical Office [Zambia]. 2010 census of population and housing (vol. 11 national descriptive tables). Lusaka, Zambia: Central Statistical Office, 2012.
55. Central Statistical Office [Zambia]. Zambia 2010 census of population and housing: preliminary population figures. Lusaka, Zambia: Central Statistical Office, 2011.
56. National Food and Nutrition Commission [Zambia]. Nutrition guidelines for care and support of people living with HIV and AIDS. Lusaka, Zambia: Ministry of Health, National Food and Nutrition Commission, 2011.
57. Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: indicator guide (v. 3). Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), 2007. Available at: https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HFIAS_ENG_v3_Aug07.pdf.
58. Frongillo EA, Nanama S. Development and validation of an experience-based measure of household food insecurity within and across seasons in Northern Burkina Faso. J Nutr. 2006 May;136(5):1409S–1419S.PMid:16614438
59. Knueppel D, Demment M, Kaiser L. Validation of the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale in rural Tanzania. Public Health Nutr. 2010 Mar;13(3):360–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980009991121 PMid:19706211
60. Filmer D, Scott K. Assessing asset indices. Demography. 2012 Feb;49(1):359–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-011-0077-5 PMid:22135117
61. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404 PMid:6668417
62. Lavoie JAA, Douglas KS. The perceived stress scale: evaluating configural, metric [End Page 370] and scalar invariance across mental health status and gender. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2012 Mar; 34(1):48–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-011-9266-1
63. Leung DYP, Lam T, Chan SSC. Three versions of perceived stress scale: validation in a sample of Chinese cardiac patients who smoke. BMC Public Health. 2010 Aug 25;10:513. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-513 PMid:20735860 PMCid:PMC2939644
64. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548387
65. Maldonado G, Greenland S. Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. Am J Epidemiol. 1993 Dec 1;138(11):923–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116813 PMid:8256780
66. Sun GW, Shook TL, Kay GL. Inappropriate use of bivariable analysis to screen risk factors for use in multivariable analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Aug;49(8):907–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(96)00025-X
67. Maddala GS. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
68. Heckman JJ. Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply. Econometrica. 1974;42(4):679–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913937
69. Heckman JJ. Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system. Econometrica. 1978;46(4):931–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/1909757
70. McCoy SI, Ralph LJ, Wilson W, et al. Alcohol production as an adaptive livelihood strategy for women farmers in Tanzania and its potential for unintended consequences on women's reproductive health. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059343 PMid:23527167 PMCid:PMC3601967
71. Fabusoro E, Omotayo A, Apantaku S, et al. Forms and determinants of rural livelihoods diversification in Ogun State, Nigeria. J Sustainable Agric. 2010;34(4):417–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440041003680296
72. Pearson G, Barratt C, Seeley J, et al. Making a livelihood at the fish-landing site: exploring the pursuit of economic independence amongst Ugandan women. J East Afr Stud. 2013 Nov 1;7(4):751–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2013.841026 PMid:25400694 PMCid:PMC4212270
73. Newman C, Canagarajah S. Non-farm employment, poverty, and gender linkages: evidence from Ghana and Uganda. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2000.
74. Bebbington A. Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Dev. 1999;27(12):2021–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7
75. Barrett CB, Carter MR, Little PD. Understanding and reducing persistent poverty in Africa: introduction to a special issue. J Dev Stud. 2006;42(2):167–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380500404587
76. Palar K, Wagner G, Ghosh-Dastidar B, et al. Role of antiretroviral therapy in improving [End Page 371] food security among patients initiating HIV treatment and care. AIDS. 2012 Nov 28;26(18):2375–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e328359b809 PMid:22948270
77. Smith DR, Gordon A, Meadows K, et al. Livelihood diversification in Uganda: patterns and determinants of change across two rural districts. Food Policy. 2001;26(4):421–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(01)00012-4
78. Allison PD. Missing data series: quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985079
79. Enders CK. Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2010.
80. Graham JW. Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:549–76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 PMid:18652544
81. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011 Feb 20;30(4):377–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067 PMid:21225900
82. van Buuren S. Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007 Jun;16(3):219–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280206074463 PMid:17621469
83. Graham JW, Olchowski AE, Gilreath TD. How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prev Sci. 2007 Sep;8(3):206–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9 PMid:17549635
84. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp, 2015.
85. Byron E, Gillespie S, Nangami M. Integrating nutrition security with treatment of people living with HIV: lessons from Kenya. Food Nutr Bull. 2008 Jun;29(2):87–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/156482650802900202 PMid:18693472
86. National AIDS Council [Zambia]. National HIV/AIDS strategic framework 2014–2016: a nation free from the threat of HIV and AIDS. Lusaka, Zambia: Ministry of Health, National AIDS Council, 2014. [End Page 372]

Additional Information

ISSN
1548-6869
Print ISSN
1049-2089
Pages
349-372
Launched on MUSE
2018-02-27
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.