Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:43:35.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Relationship between home garden ownership and the consumption of fruits and vegetables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2024

Mahama Saaka*
Affiliation:
University for Development Studies, School of Allied Health Sciences, P O Box 1883, Tamale, Ghana
Simon Awini
Affiliation:
Ghana Health Service, Wa West District Health Administration, Wechau, Ghana
Fred Kizito
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Tamale, Ghana
Eric Nang
Affiliation:
Ghana Health Service, Nadowli-Kaleo District Health Administration, Nadowli, Ghana
*
*Corresponding author: Email mmsaaka@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This study assessed the extent to which access to home gardens associate with the frequency of fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption.

Setting:

The study was carried out in fifty rural communities in Northern Ghana where food insecurity and malnutrition including micronutrient deficiencies are prevalent.

Design:

A community-based comparative analytical cross-sectional study.

Participants:

A sample of 847 randomly selected rural households.

Results:

The proportion of households that consumed FV at least 3 d in a week was 45 %. Members in households who owned a home garden were 1·5 times more likely to consume FV at least 3 d in a week (adjusted OR (AOR) = 1·46 (95 % CI 1·06–2·0)), compared with their counterparts who had no home gardens. Furthermore, households in which mothers had a positive attitude towards FV consumption were 1·6 times more likely to consume FV (AOR = 1·63 (95 % CI 1·17–2·27)) compared with mothers who were less positive.

Conclusions:

Our results suggest that food and nutrition policy measures that promote home gardens can improve consumption of diversified diets including FV among vulnerable rural households in Northern Ghana. Additionally, households with lower income may benefit from nutrition behaviour change communication campaigns directed towards increasing a positive attitude to FV intake.

Type
Research Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Home gardening is an agricultural activity which can contribute significantly to nutrition security and livelihood of poor rural households in developing countries(Reference Castañeda-Navarrete1Reference Lal3), but it has received little research attention over the years(Reference Castañeda-Navarrete1,Reference Lal3,Reference Rybak, Mbwana and Bonatti4) . The available evidence on the effect of home gardening interventions on nutritional outcomes such as vegetable consumption remains mixed because whereas some studies have reported a positive association(Reference Alaimo, Beavers and Coringrato5Reference Litt, Alaimo and Harrall9), others have reported a neutral or no effect at all(Reference Robinson-Oghogho and Thorpe10Reference Masset, Haddad and Cornelius13). The question remains as to whether households that put up such gardens truly benefit from them nutritionally. It is therefore important to further assess the effect of home gardening in different geographical settings and population groups.

The diets of many people in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are deficient in essential micronutrients(Reference Ruel14), emanating mainly from low consumption of nutrient-dense foods such as fruits, vegetables and animal protein(Reference Kumar, Harris and Rawat15,Reference Ekesa, Blomme and Garming16) . Fruits and vegetables (FV) are important sources of vital nutrients that are required to prevent diet-related diseases, including, diabetes, cancer, CHD, stroke and cataract formation(Reference Angelino, Godos and Ghelfi1719). The WHO recommends a daily intake of at least 400 g (or five servings) of FV per person to curb non-communicable diseases(20). Therefore, a sustainable means of producing and consuming FV is a necessary step towards the prevention of these diseases. It is in this light that home gardens hold a central place in the search for ways to improve household food and nutrition security. A home garden is defined as a ‘traditional land use system around a homestead, where several species of plants are grown and maintained by the household members and their products are primarily intended for the family consumption’(Reference Gautam, Sthapit and Shrestha21). They are usually sited near to the house and source of water and are managed by family members(Reference Arimond, Hawkes, Ruel, Thompson and Amoroso22).

A home garden can supply a family with substantial quantities of a variety of foods all year round and a source of family income, thereby providing access to diversified diets and increased purchasing power from income from sales of garden products(23). Home gardening, therefore, has economic and nutritional merit but which most households are not taking advantage of due to some constraints including lack of land space and water availability.

Home gardening has the potential to increase the availability and economic access to nutrient-dense FV. However, there is paucity of evidence on the relationship between ownership of home gardens and the consumption of FV in deprived rural communities. An earlier review showed that ten out of fifteen home garden interventions in developing countries increased household production and consumption of nutrient-dense foods(Reference Harvey, Dangour and Taylor24). However, some randomised controlled trials on home garden interventions in some countries including Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda found no significant effects on diets(Reference Depenbusch, Schreinemachers and Roothaert11). To formulate interventions that can increase the consumption of FV, the factors that hinder their consumption need to be identified and addressed adequately. It is against this backdrop this study assessed the extent to which access to home gardens associate with the frequency of FV consumption in rural households of Northern Ghana.

Methods

Study setting

The study was undertaken in fifty communities in Northern Ghana where food insecurity and malnutrition including micronutrient deficiencies are prevalent. Agriculture is the main occupation for the majority of the people, while others engage in trading activities(25). The main staple foods are maize, sorghum, millet and yam. There is a long dry season when it becomes very difficult for most households to access leafy green vegetables.

Study design, population and sampling

A community-based comparative analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in rural households with children under 5 years of age. The proportion of households that consumed FV was unknown and was thus assumed to be 50 % as per common practice(Reference Cochran26). The minimum sample size was calculated with 5 % margin of error at 95 % confidence level and a design effect of 2·0. Based on these assumptions, a one-point sample size of 768 was determined. The provision of 10·0 % was made to take care of unforeseen circumstances including incomplete and damaged questionnaires. The sample size was thus adjusted to 847 households.

The eligible study households were selected from a multistage approach. First, five districts were selected from simple random sampling. In each of the selected districts, ten communities were selected using a cluster sampling procedure. A systematic random sampling technique was used to select eligible households in each community. With the help of community health volunteers, households in each community were serially numbered to obtain the total number. The number of households was then divided by the cluster sample size of 17 to give the sampling interval. The first household was selected by randomly picking any number within the sampling interval (i.e. from 1 to 17). Subsequent households were selected by adding the sampling interval to the previously selected serial number. In each household, one couple was randomly selected for an interview.

Data collection methods

The survey was undertaken in February 2021 during the lean dry season. Interviews were conducted in the households face to face by trained enumerators using a structured questionnaire. Data were collected on socio-demographic characteristics, fathers’ involvement in child feeding activities, frequency, and reasons for consuming FV, and knowledge of mothers regarding nutritional and health benefits of FV. The enumerators collected the data electronically using smartphones.

Study variables

The principal dependent variable was the frequency of consuming FV. The study participants were asked to recall the number of days FV were eaten in the household within past 7 d preceding the study. The frequency of consuming FV was classified as low (less than 3 d in a week) and high (at least 3 d in a week),

The key explanatory variable was whether a household had a home garden or not. Home gardening was defined as growing FV in or around the home. The respondents were also asked to provide information on the kind of crops grown in their home gardens.

The mothers’ attitudes towards FV consumption were assessed by their responses to twelve positive statements about the nutritional and health benefits of FV. A three-point Likert scale, with three response options (agree, neutral and disagree), was used. A score of −1 was given to responses that disagree, while a score of 1 was assigned for agreeing to positive attitude. Neutral (do not know) responses were scored 0. A total correct score for each respondent was then calculated and classified as positive if was at least the median score, otherwise it was considered as negative.

Assessment of socio-economic status

The wealth index was used as a proxy for household socio-economic status which was quantified using the principal component analysis. The wealth index was based on ownership of durable economic assets, including bicycle, television, radio, motorcycle, sewing machine, telephone, cars, refrigerator, mattress, bed, computer and mobile phone(Reference Filmer and Pritchett27Reference Howe, Hargreaves and Huttly29). The households were then categorised into one of five wealth quintiles (ranging from poorest to richest households).

Data analysis

The data were analysed using the SPSS package (SPSS version 22.0, IBM Corp.). To obtain correct point estimates which took the cluster sampling into account, the complex samples module of SPSS was used in the analysis. In bivariate analysis, the χ 2 was used to assess associations of categorical variables, while multivariable logistic regression model was used to measure associations between independent variables and the main outcome measure. Adjusted OR (AOR) with 95 % CI were presented as measures of association. Potential confounders that were controlled for were household size, exposure to nutrition education, type of employment, educational level of mothers and fathers, household wealth index, region of residence, mothers’ attitudes towards FV consumption, and father’s involvement in childcare and feeding.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants

Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants. The mean age for mothers was 29·4 ± 6·2 years. Most mothers (55·5 %) had no formal education and 26·1 % of households were within the fifth quintile of household wealth index. Respondents were mostly of the Dagomba tribe and 53·1 % of them were Muslims. Most of the households (72·1 %) had one child who was under 2 years.

Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of sample (n 847)

Attitudes of mothers towards the consumption of fruits and vegetables

Respondents (at least 80 %) agreed with most of the positive statements about nutritional and health benefits of FV. However, only a modest proportion of respondents disagreed with the belief that FV are good for the poor while meat and fish are for the rich (41·6 %). As many as 55·6 % of the respondents held the false belief that FV are meant for the poor (Table 2).

Table 2 Attitudes of respondents on the nutritional and health benefits of fruits and vegetables

Vegetable production and consumption characteristics of home gardeners

The proportion of study participants who reported owning a home garden was 40·4 %, and most of them believed the main function of home garden was to provide daily food needs. The vegetables produced and consumed included salad greens, lettuce, eggplant, pumpkin leaves, tomatoes, beans and cucumbers. Forty-seven per cent of households consumed FV at least 3 d in the week preceding the study. High prices and non-availability of FV were cited as the main barriers to their regular consumption. Under 1 % of respondents could not mention any benefit for consuming FV (Table 3).

Table 3 Vegetables production and consumption characteristics of home gardeners (N 847)

Predictors of fruit and vegetable consumption in rural households

Home gardening was associated with frequent consumption of FV. Mothers who had at least secondary education compared with those with no education were more likely to consume FV at least 3 d in a week. Similarly, poorest households were less likely to consume FV. Father’s involvement in childcare and feeding was positively associated with frequent consumption of FV. There were also regional differences in the consumption of FV, with the Upper East having the highest proportion of households that consumed FV (Table 4).

Table 4 Factors associated with fruits and vegetables consumption (bivariate analysis)

After controlling for potential confounding factors, the ownership of home gardens remained a significant independent predictor of FV consumption (Table 5). Members in households who owned a home garden were 1·5 times more likely to consume FV at least 3 d in a week (AOR = 1·46 (95 % CI 1·06–2·0)), compared with their counterparts who had no home gardens.

Table 5 Predictors of fruits and vegetables (FV) consumption in rural households (multivariable logistic regression analysis)

Compared with households in the Upper West region, households in the Upper East region were 3·5 times more likely to consume FV at least 3 d in a week (AOR = 3·46 (95 % CI 2·23–5·36)). Households in which mothers had a positive attitude towards FV consumption were 1·6 times more likely to consume FV (AOR = 1·63 (95 % CI 1·17–2·27)), compared with mothers who were less positive. Compared with children from the poorest households, children from richest wealth tertile were 2·4 times more likely to consume FV (AOR = 2·39 (95 % CI 1·19–4·79)). The set of predictors accounted for 19·0 % of the variation in FV consumption (Nagelkerke R square = 0·190).

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to analyse whether ownership of home gardens associate with FV consumption in rural households. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first detailed quantitative assessment of the relationship between home gardening and FV consumption in rural households of Northern Ghana. The main finding was that ownership of home gardens was positively associated with frequent consumption of FV.

Contribution of home gardens to the consumption of micronutrient-rich fruits and vegetables

Members in households who owned a home garden were more likely to consume FV at least 3 d in a week. The possible reason for the differences in the consumption of vegetables may be due to availability of their own produce. This finding is consistent with available evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis which have shown positive effect of community and home gardening on the consumption of FV(Reference Hume, Grieger and Kalamkarian8,Reference Kunpeuk, Spence and Phulkerd30Reference Kegler, Prakash and Hermstad33) . Similarly, studies in Bangladesh and Nepal showed that a home garden intervention significantly increased household vegetable production and consumption(Reference Baliki, Brück and Schreinemachers34,Reference Schreinemachers, Baliki and Shrestha35) . However, some randomised controlled trials on home garden interventions in some countries including Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda found no significant effects on diets(Reference Depenbusch, Schreinemachers and Roothaert11). The investigators attributed the lack of impact to the fact that many participating households were already producing vegetables and a low participation of households in training events. From Zambia, another cluster-randomised controlled trial reported there was no effect on household or child dietary diversity(Reference Kumar, Nguyen and Harris12). It is unclear what accounts for the contrasts between our findings and these other findings. However, the role of other determinants of FV consumption cannot be underestimated. For example, fathers’ involvement in child feeding activities was positively associated with frequent consumption of FV in households in our study sample. This may not be the case in these other countries.

Consumption of fruits and vegetables in rural households

Frequency of consuming FV was generally low, and 47·1 % of households consumed at least 3 d in the week prior to the study. Despite the importance of FV to human health, people in many LMIC and as reported in the present study consume far less than the required five servings(Reference Miller, Mente and Dehghan36,Reference Okop, Ndayi and Tsolekile37) . In a meta-analysis of the vegetable intake of 162 countries, it was found that vegetable intake in 88 % of the investigated countries is below the WHO recommended level(Reference Kalmpourtzidou, Eilander and Talsma38). This low consumption pattern of FV has been reported in many other LMIC, including Iran, Kenya and Tanzania where it was observed that 87·5 %, 94 % and 82 %, respectively, of adults consumed less than five servings a day(Reference Pengpid and Peltzer39,Reference Msambichaka, Eze and Abdul40) . In many other LMIC, such as Mexico and Thailand, FV are produced mainly to export to other countries(Reference Ramírez-Silva, Rivera and Ponce41).

The most frequently cited reasons respondents gave for consuming FV were for the promotion of growth and development and protection against diseases. Two main barriers to regular FV consumption identified in this study were high prices and non-availability. High price is a common and strong barrier to the consumption of FV, especially in low-income countries(Reference Frank, Webster and McKenzie42).

Adequate consumption of FV protects against diet-related and lifestyle diseases, including, diabetes, cancer, CHD, stroke and improved immunity against non-communicable diseases(Reference Angelino, Godos and Ghelfi17,Reference de Villier and Faber18) . The significant benefits of consuming FV buttresses the urgent need to promote and encourage their consumption through public health campaigns.

Predictors of fruit and vegetable consumption in rural households

There was a statistically significant positive association between frequent vegetable consumption and household access to home gardens, after controlling for some confounders. This is consistent with studies including meta-analysis from different settings which have reported that home gardening interventions are positively associated with increased intake of FV in eight cases(Reference Cabalda, Rayco-Solon and Solon43,Reference Hawkes, Ruel and Arimond44) . Another review of twenty-three studies in 2008 found home gardens to be positively associated with intakes of FV in fourteen cases(Reference Haider and Bhutta45). However, a systematic review of twenty-three home garden interventions between 1995 and 2009 found mixed results, with unclear evidence of the influence of home gardens on diets and other health indicators including stunting(Reference Masset, Haddad and Cornelius13).

There was also a statistically significant positive association between frequent vegetable consumption and household wealth. Relative to a household in the highest wealth tertile (richest households), lowest tertile households (poorest) were less likely to consume FV. This finding concurs very well with recent and past studies, including systematic reviews and meta-analysis which reported that people of higher income were less likely to have a low intake of FV(Reference Okop, Ndayi and Tsolekile37,Reference Mustafa, Haque and Baksi46,Reference Darmon and Drewnowski47) . Households with higher wealth may be able to prioritise and afford FV, compared with low-income families because of price restrictions. It has also been reported that the high perishable nature of FV hinders their consumption among poor families(Reference Giskes, Turrell and Patterson48).

Although high educational attainment was not significant in the logistic regression, the bivariate analysis showed mothers’ educational level was a good predictor for intake of more FV. Respondents with higher education (i.e. secondary and tertiary education) were more likely to eat FV at least 3 d in a week in our study sample. The waning effect of maternal education in the logistic regression may have resulted from the colinearity with household wealth index. A number of other studies have reported of high educational attainment and FV consumption(Reference Frank, Webster and McKenzie42,Reference Mustafa, Haque and Baksi46) . The fact that a higher FV intake was associated with higher education suggests that respondents who have attained higher educational level may be more informed in decision-making during the purchases of food.

In our study, fathers’ involvement in child feeding activities was positively associated with frequent consumption of FV in households. Traditionally, fathers are expected to provide financial and logistical resources for the family(Reference Wambui49Reference Rakotomanana, Walters and Komakech51). Though most interventions aim to improve child feeding practices by targeting mothers, there is an emerging evidence which suggests that when fathers are involved in nutrition education sessions in LMIC such as Kenya and Ethiopia(Reference Han, Park and Kim52,Reference Bich, Long and Hoa53) , it brings about positive nutritional outcomes. The results are also in line with an earlier study that has found positive associations between fathers’ interaction with their children and vegetable consumption(Reference Kähkönen, Sandell and Rönkä54).

Study limitations

The findings in this study should be considered in the context of its limitations. Firstly, the study was cross-sectional which has the inherent inability to establish causal relationships. In view of this limitation, future research should assess the benefits of home gardening interventions using more rigorous study design. Second, the study used the 1-week dietary recall methodology which relies on respondents’ ability to remember what foods were consumed. This self-reported data may lead to measurement bias of the food consumed. The ability to recall foods may vary between individuals based on participants’ memory and concentration levels. Despite these limitations, the findings in this study add to existing evidence that home gardens can contribute to increased consumption of FV in rural communities of LMIC.

Conclusions

FV consumption was quite low, although ownership of home gardens was positively associated with frequent consumption of these foods. Our results also suggest that food and nutrition policy measures that promote home gardens can improve adequate consumption of diversified diets among vulnerable rural households in Northern Ghana. Additionally, households with lower income may benefit from nutrition behaviour change communication campaigns directed towards increasing positive attitudes to FV intake.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge very much for the cooperation and support received from survey team members from the Ghana Health Service (GHS). The data could not have been obtained without the cooperation and support of the selected households.

Financial support

This research received financial support from West Africa, Africa RISING Project funded by the USAID Feed the Future Nutrition. USAID had no role in the design, data collection and analysis or preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Authorship

MS and FK conceived and designed the study. EN and SA were involved in the supervision of the study, data collection and reviewing of the manuscript drafts critically for important intellectual content. MS analysed the dataset and drafted the manuscript with inputs from FK. All authors read and approved the final draft version submitted for publication.

Ethics of human subject participation

Manuscripts describing research involving human participants must include the following statement: this study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures involving research study participants were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Navrongo Health Research Centre. Written (or verbal) informed consent was obtained from all subjects/patients. Verbal consent was witnessed and formally recorded.

References

Castañeda-Navarrete, J (2021) Homegarden diversity and food security in southern Mexico. Food Secur 13, 669683.Google Scholar
Dragojlovic, N, Michaux, KD, Moumin, NA et al. (2020) Economic evaluation of an enhanced homestead food production intervention for undernutrition in women and children in rural Cambodia. Glob Food Sec 24, 100335.Google Scholar
Lal, R (2020) Home gardening and urban agriculture for advancing food and nutritional security in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Food Secur 12, 871876.Google Scholar
Rybak, C, Mbwana, HA, Bonatti, M et al. (2018) Status and scope of kitchen gardening of green leafy vegetables in rural Tanzania: implications for nutrition interventions. Food Secur 10, 14371447.Google Scholar
Alaimo, K, Beavers, AW, Coringrato, E et al. (2023) Community gardening increases vegetable intake and seasonal eating From Baseline to Harvest: results from a mixed methods randomized controlled trial. Curr Dev Nutr 7, 100077.Google Scholar
Ruel, MT & Alderman, H (2013) Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: how can they help to accelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition?. Lancet 382, 536551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, MT, Ribeiro, SM, Germani, A et al. (2018) The impact of urban gardens on adequate and healthy food: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 21, 416425.Google Scholar
Hume, C, Grieger, JA, Kalamkarian, A et al. (2022) Community gardens and their effects on diet, health, psychosocial and community outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 22, 1247.Google Scholar
Litt, J, Alaimo, K, Harrall, KK et al. (2023) The effects of a community gardening intervention on diet, physical activity, and anthropometry outcomes: a two arm, observer-blind, randomised controlled trial (CAPS trial. Lancet Planet Health 7, e23e32.Google Scholar
Robinson-Oghogho, JN & Thorpe, RJ (2021) Garden access, race and vegetable acquisition among U.S. adults: findings from a national survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18, 12059.Google Scholar
Depenbusch, L, Schreinemachers, P, Roothaert, R et al. (2021) Impact of home garden interventions in East Africa: results of three randomized controlled trials. Food Policy 104, 102140.Google Scholar
Kumar, N, Nguyen, PH, Harris, J et al. (2018) What it takes: evidence from a nutrition- and gender-sensitive agriculture intervention in rural Zambia. J Dev Eff 10, 341372.Google Scholar
Masset, E, Haddad, L, Cornelius, A et al. (2012) Effectiveness of agricultural interventions that aim to improve nutritional status of children: systematic review. Br Med J 344, d8222.Google Scholar
Ruel, MT (2003) Operationalizing dietary diversity: a review of measurement issues and research priorities. J Nutr 133, 3911S26S.Google Scholar
Kumar, N, Harris, J & Rawat, R (2015) If they grow it, will they eat and grow? Evidence from Zambia on agricultural diversity and child undernutrition. J Dev Stud 51, 10601077.Google Scholar
Ekesa, BN, Blomme, G & Garming, H (2011) Dietary diversity and nutritional status of pre-school children from Musa-dependent households in Gitega (Burundi) and Butembo (Democratic Republic of Congo). Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev 11, 48964911.Google Scholar
Angelino, D, Godos, J, Ghelfi, F et al. (2019) Fruit and vegetable consumption and health outcomes: an umbrella review of observational studies. Int J Food Sci Nutr 70, 652667.Google Scholar
de Villier, A & Faber, M (2019) Changing young people’s food-related behaviour: a socio-ecological perspective. Public Health Nutr 22, 19171919.Google Scholar
WHO & FAO (2005) Fruit and vegetables for health. In Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Workshop. Kobe, Japan: WHO.Google Scholar
WHO & FAO (2003) Diet, nutrition, and the prevention of chronic diseases. In Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation: WHO Technical Report Series, 916. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Gautam, R, Sthapit, BR & Shrestha, PK (2004) Home gardens in Nepal:. In Proceedings of a Workshop on “Enhancing the Contribution of Home Garden to on-farm Management of Plant Genetic Resources and to Improve the Livelihoods of Nepalese Farmers: Lessons Learned and Policy Implications”. Pokhara, Nepal: Bioversity International and SDC.Google Scholar
Arimond, M, Hawkes, C, Ruel, MT et al. (2011) Agricultural interventions and nutrition: lessons from the past and new evidence. In Combating Micronutrient Deficiencies : Food-Based Approaches, pp. 4175 [Thompson, B, Amoroso, L, editors]. Oxford: CABI.Google Scholar
FAO & FHI 360 (2016) Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women: A Guide for Measurement. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Harvey, M, Dangour, A & Taylor, A (2014) Can Agriculture Interventions Promote Nutrition: Agriculture and Nutrition Evidence Paper. London, UK: Department for International Development (DFID).Google Scholar
Ghana Statistical Service (2014) 2010 Population and Housing Census: Saboba District Analytical Report. Accra, Ghana: Ghana Statistical Service.Google Scholar
Cochran, WG (1977) Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Filmer, D & Pritchett, LH (2001) Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data—or tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography 38, 115132.Google Scholar
Rutstein, SO & Johnson, K (2004) DHS Comparative Reports 6: The DHS Wealth Index. Calverton, Maryland, USA: ORC Macro.Google Scholar
Howe, LD, Hargreaves, JR & Huttly, SRA (2008) Issues in the construction of wealth indices for the measurement of socio-economic position in low-income countries. Emerging Themes Epidemiol 5, 3.Google ScholarPubMed
Kunpeuk, W, Spence, W, Phulkerd, S et al. (2020) The impact of gardening on nutrition and physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Promot Int 35, 397408.Google Scholar
Depenbusch, L, Schreinemachers, P, Brown, S et al. (2022) Impact and distributional effects of a home garden and nutrition intervention in Cambodia. Food Sec 14, 865881.Google Scholar
Bird, FA, Pradhan, A, Bhavani, RV et al. (2019) Interventions in agriculture for nutrition outcomes: a systematic review focused on South Asia. Food Policy 82, 3949.Google Scholar
Kegler, M, Prakash, R, Hermstad, A et al. (2020) Home gardening and associations with fruit and vegetable intake and BMI. Public Health Nutr 23, 34173422.Google Scholar
Baliki, G, Brück, T, Schreinemachers, P et al. (2022) Impacts of a home garden intervention in Bangladesh after one, three and six years. Agric Food Secur 11, 48.Google Scholar
Schreinemachers, P, Baliki, G, Shrestha, RM et al. (2020) Nudging children toward healthier food choices: an experiment combining school and home gardens. Global Food Secur 26, 100454.Google Scholar
Miller, V, Mente, A, Dehghan, M et al. (2017) Fruit, vegetable, and legume intake, and cardiovascular disease and deaths in 18 countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study. Lancet 390, 20372049.Google Scholar
Okop, KJ, Ndayi, K, Tsolekile, L et al. (2019) Low intake of commonly available fruits and vegetables in socio-economically disadvantaged communities of South Africa: influence of affordability and sugary drinks intake.. BMC Public Health 19, 940.Google Scholar
Kalmpourtzidou, A, Eilander, A & Talsma, EF (2020) Global vegetable intake and supply compared to recommendations: a systematic review. Nutrients 12, 2229.Google Scholar
Pengpid, S & Peltzer, K (2018) The prevalence and social determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among adults in Kenya: a cross-sectional national population-based survey, 2015. Pan Afr Med J 31, 27.Google Scholar
Msambichaka, B, Eze, IC, Abdul, R et al. (2018) Insufficient fruit and vegetable intake in a low- and middle-income setting: a population-based survey in semi-Urban Tanzania. Nutrients 10, 222.Google Scholar
Ramírez-Silva, I, Rivera, JA, Ponce, X et al. (2009) Fruit and vegetable intake in the Mexican population: results from the Mexican National Health and Nutrition Survey 2006. Salud Publica Mex 51, S574S85.Google Scholar
Frank, SM, Webster, J, McKenzie, B et al. (2019) Consumption of fruits and vegetables among individuals 15 years and older in 28 low- and middle-income countries. J Nutr 149, 12521259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabalda, AB, Rayco-Solon, P, Solon, JA et al. (2011) Home gardening is associated with Filipino preschool children’s dietary diversity. J Am Diet Assoc 111, 711715.Google Scholar
Hawkes, C, Ruel, MT, Arimond, M et al. (2010) From Agriculture to Nutrition: Pathways, Synergies, and Outcomes. Washington, DC: IBRD and the World Bank.Google Scholar
Haider, BA & Bhutta, ZA (2008) Dietary diversification strategies including home gardening, livestock farming and dietary modifications. Lancet 371, 417440.Google Scholar
Mustafa, S, Haque, CE & Baksi, S (2021) Low daily intake of fruits and vegetables in rural and urban Bangladesh: influence of socioeconomic and demographic factors, social food beliefs and behavioural practices. Nutrients 13, 2808.Google Scholar
Darmon, N & Drewnowski, A (2015) Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: a systematic review and analysis. Nutr Rev 73, 643660.Google Scholar
Giskes, K, Turrell, G, Patterson, C et al. (2002) Socio-economic differences in fruit and vegetable consumption among Australian adolescents and adults. Public Health Nutr 5, 663669.Google Scholar
Wambui, MA (2020) Factors influencing male involvement in young children feeding practices: a case of dagoretti informal settlements. In Institute of Anthropology Gender and African Studies. Nairobi, Kenya: University of Nairobi.Google Scholar
Dougherty, L, Magalona, S, Moreaux, M et al. (2017) The father factor: how community video encourages male involvement for better nutrition and hygiene behaviours. In Strengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in Niger. Arlington, VA: Strengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in Nutrition Globally (SPRING) project.Google Scholar
Rakotomanana, H, Walters, CN, Komakech, JJ et al. (2021) Fathers’ involvement in child care activities: qualitative findings from the highlands of Madagascar. PLOS ONE 16, e0247112.Google Scholar
Han, YE, Park, S, Kim, JE et al. (2019) Father engagement in improving infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices: evidence from a clustered randomized controlled trial in Ethiopia. Curr Dev Nutr 3, nzz048.Google Scholar
Bich, TH, Long, TK & Hoa, DP (2019) Community-based father education intervention on breastfeeding practice: results of a quasi-experimental study. Matern Child Nutr 15, e12705.Google Scholar
Kähkönen, K, Sandell, M, Rönkä, A et al. (2021) Children’s fruit and vegetable preferences are associated with their mothers’ and fathers’ preferences. Foods 10, 261. doi: 10.3390/foods10020261.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of sample (n 847)

Figure 1

Table 2 Attitudes of respondents on the nutritional and health benefits of fruits and vegetables

Figure 2

Table 3 Vegetables production and consumption characteristics of home gardeners (N 847)

Figure 3

Table 4 Factors associated with fruits and vegetables consumption (bivariate analysis)

Figure 4

Table 5 Predictors of fruits and vegetables (FV) consumption in rural households (multivariable logistic regression analysis)