Back

Dietary Diversity and Underweight Among Women Aged 15-49 Years in Cambodia: Analysis of the 2021-22 Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey

Sieng, C.; Um, S.; Heng, S.

2026-10-14 nutrition
10.64898/2026.10.13.26365381 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aim: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and distribution of minimum dietary diversity for women (MDD-W) and underweight/thinness and examine sociodemographic and dietary factors associated with underweight/thinness among Cambodian women aged 15-49 years. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 9,181 women aged 15-49 years (9,262.5 weighted) from the 2021-22 Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey. Survey-weighted descriptive statistics and provincial mapping were used to describe MDD-W, food-group consumption and underweight/thinness. Rao-Scott chi-square tests assessed group differences, and survey-weighted logistic regression estimated factors associated with underweight/thinness. MDD-W and household wealth were retained a priori in the adjusted model, while other covariates with an overall crude Wald P value <0.20 were included. Results: The analysis included 9,181 women (9,262.5 weighted). Overall, 57.2% achieved MDD-W, and 6.7% had underweight/thinness; 22.8% were overweight, and 5.7% had obesity. Underweight/thinness was highest among women aged 20-24 years (17.7%). Achieving MDD-W was not associated with underweight/thinness in crude analysis (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; P=0.545). In the adjusted analysis, the association remained imprecise (aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.09; P=0.219). Provincial estimates showed geographic variation in both MDD-W and underweight/thinness. Conclusion: More than half of Cambodian women achieved MDD-W, while underweight/thinness coexisted with overweight and obesity. MDD-W was not clearly associated with underweight/thinness. These findings support monitoring dietary diversity, anthropometric status, and socioeconomic inequalities together in women's nutrition.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.