How urbanisation might affect the nutritional status of children is not clear. The comparison of rural versus urban populations has relevance because of the rapid urbanisation now occurring in low-income and middle-income countries, with the potential for mixed results. The urban-rural differences are greater in some regions than others and the trends show variability in the narrowing of the urban-rural gap by regions.
On the basis of the data presented in this paper, it seems that, on average, children in urban areas fare better than their rural counterparts. In the paper by Christopher Paciorek and colleagues in this issue of The Lancet Global Health, 2 differences in trends in under-5 underweight between rural and urban populations are examined by countries and regions from 1985 to 2011. 1 Improving trends in average indicator values for national or regional groups can mask substantial lags in vulnerable populations within these larger geographical areas. Within this target are two measurable indicators-the prevalence of underweight children younger than 5 years of age and the proportion of the population below the minimum level of dietary energy consumption.
For the nutritional target within MDG 1, target 2 aims to halve the proportion of undernourished people between 19. With the target date of 2015 for meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) nearing, studies that examine trends in target indicators by subgroups are valuable contributions to the understanding of whether targets will be met, and can help to identify inequities in indicator trends for certain at-risk populations.
0 kommentar(er)
