IRD/B. Maire
This chapter contains the indicators most often presented in the literature but usually scattered in many different publications. They are grouped by sectoral field. It must be emphasised that the list does not claim to be exhaustive. The following criteria were used to develop it:
The indicators have been proposed for monitoring achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (see Introduction), identified in the tables by MDG1-8.
The indicators are frequently collected and analyzed by administrative services or by major information systems on a routine basis. In particular, they are found among the indicators of the fifteen information fields corresponding to the conceptual framework adopted by the Inter-Agency Working Group on Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems (IAWG/FIVIMS), identified as such (FIVIMS). They also include indicators approved by the Committee on World Food Security, at its 26th and 27th Sessions and used in the yearly evaluations of world food security, identified as such (CFS). Other indicators derive from information systems of other agencies of the United Nations (WHO and World Bank in particular), the OECD or statistics of ministerial departments of States. It must be noted that the choice or formulation of these indicators steadily evolves over time.
Next, the indicators are recommended by expert bodies in a given specific sector, such as indicators of nutritional anthropometry of children (WHO) or of adults (FAO, IDECG) Vitamin A deficiency (IVACG) or iodine deficiency (ICCIDD), iron deficiency anemia (INACG) etc. They represent the indicators which can be used to characterise a given problem, in agreement with the groups of international experts who have examined the problem.
Finally, indicators that are mainly used in more specific studies, or in certain more sophisticated information systems. Since their value has, however, been clearly demonstrated, they are accepted here as potential indicators. Among them, some are recent and have not yet been widely used; considered innovative by some authors, they have been included because they offer information hitherto lacking.
This list of indicators, which is long but not exhaustive, cannot be used in its entirety! It is intended to help choose indicators, on the basis of a conceptual framework of a specific situation and needs under consideration. The list is not organized strictly in order of importance, because specific situations will call for an ad-hoc choice of indicators.
In line with the conceptual framework of causes of malnutrition and mortality, the major divisions adopted here are nutritional status, food security, caring capacity, health and demographics, and fundamental socio-economic and agro-ecological indicators.
Since the order followed is a function of the conceptual framework of the causes of malnutrition and mortality, the list begins with the principal indicators of nutritional status. Logically, indicators of mortality ought to follow; however, for reasons of simplification, the general demographic indicators, including those of mortality, have been left together and appear further down the list.
The indicators relating to nutritional and food problems are obviously more highly developed.
The same indicators may be found at different levels, if they appear useful in the analysis of the situation for different sectors.
Finally, it should be noted that indicators may be revised at variable intervals by expert committees; therefore it is useful to consult a specialist in the sector under consideration to know if improvements or validation have taken place since this document was written and also in order to be aware of limits of interpretation of the indicators.
Indicators in this field - as well as procedures for data collection, analysis and interpretation - are now standardized. While this standardization is widely followed for anthropometry, it is still viewed as somewhat new for micronutrients.
The lists are more complete or more detailed for some aspects than for others, depending on the groups of experts who have studied them, and the type of programmes that might be implemented.
The terms "percentage", "frequency", "incidence", "prevalence" or "rate" are used in different situations. A rate refers to the ratio between two quantities, generally expressed as "percent" or "per thousand". A frequency refers to a proportion of individuals in a statistical sample who show a given characteristic. Two frequencies are distinguished in the health sector, both expressed as percentages: prevalence, which represents the frequency - either immediate or during a given period - of a sickness or event; and incidence, which represents the frequency of new cases alone for the period in question.
TABLE 1
Anthropometric indicators
INDICATORS |
REFERENCE CUT-OFF VALUE |
USED BY |
Preschool children (0-59 months) |
||
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
MDG 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preschool children (0-59 months) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
School-age children (6-10 years) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adolescents (11-18 years) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adults (18 years) |
||
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TABLE 2
WHO classification for assessing severity
of malnutrition in the population of children 0-59 months of age
INDICATOR |
PREVALENCE |
|||
|
low |
medium |
high |
very high |
underweight (% with weight-for-age <-2 Z-scores) |
<10 |
10-19 |
20-29 |
³30 |
wasting (% with weight-for-height <-2 Z-scores) |
<5 |
5-9 |
10-14 |
³15 |
stunting (% with height-for-age <-2 Z-scores) |
<20 |
20-29 |
30-39 |
³40 |
TABLE 3
Iodine
deficiency[10]
PREVALENCE INDICATORS |
VULNERABLE GROUPS |
CUT-OFF VALUE |
USED BY |
|
|
Grade 1 and grade 2 |
FIVIMS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<100 µg/L (deficiency low to severe) or <50 µg/L (severe and moderate deficiency) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDICATORS OF RISK |
|||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
INDICATORS FOR ASSESSING PROGRESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMMES |
|||
|
CFS |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
FIVIMS |
||
|
|
||
|
|
The clinical indicators of iodine deficiency (goitre) are useful for an initial assessment or long-term monitoring of programme impact. The biological indicators (urinary iodine) are more sensitive to change in iodine intake and therefore more useful for short-term evaluation of programme impact. TSH concentration in newborns is a sensitive marker of iodine status but interpretation is difficult. The measurement of thyroglobulin is costly and its usefulness is still debated.
TABLE 4
Vitamin A
deficiency[11]
PREVALENCE INDICATORS |
VULNERABLE GROUPS |
CUT-OFF VALUES |
USED BY |
|
|
|
IVACG |
|
|
|
IVACG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDICATORS OF RISK |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GENERAL INDICATORS OF RISK |
|||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
FIVIMS |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
INDICATORS FOR MONITORING PROGRESS OF PROGRAMMES |
|||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
* RE: retinol equivalent
TABLE 5
Iron
deficiency[12]
PREVALENCE INDICATORS |
VULNERABLE GROUPS |
CUT-OFFS |
USED BY |
|
|
|
|
- % of individuals with a hemoglobin concentration lower than
the norm for sex age and physiological status |
|
<110 g/L |
FIVIMS |
|
<115 g/L |
|
|
|
<120 g/L |
|
|
|
<130 g/L |
|
|
|
<70 g/L |
|
|
- % of individuals with a hematocrit level lower than the norm
for sex, age and physiological status |
|
<33% |
|
|
<34% |
|
|
|
<36% |
|
|
|
<39% |
|
|
|
|
<12% |
|
|
<14% |
|
|
|
<16% |
|
|
|
|
<12 mg/L |
|
|
<15 mg/L |
|
|
|
|
>70 µg/dL |
|
|
>80 µg/dL |
|
|
INDICATORS OF RISK |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
INDICATORS FOR ASSESSING PROGRESS OF PROGRAMMES |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
TABLE 6
Epidemiological criteria for assessing
the importance of micro-nutrient deficiencies in the population
DEFICIENCY |
POPULATION GROUP |
INDICATOR |
SITUATION OF DEFICIENCY |
||
mild |
moderate |
severe |
|||
Iron |
all groups |
Anemia (%) |
5.0-19.9 |
20.0-39.9 |
40.0 |
Iodine |
children 6-12 years |
Total goitre rate (%) |
5.0-19.9 |
20.0-29.9 |
30.0 |
children 6-12 years |
Median urinary iodine (mg/L) |
50-99 |
20-49 |
<20 |
|
Vitamin A |
pregnant women |
Night blindness, XN (%) |
>5 |
||
children 2-5 years |
Night blindness, XN (or Bitot spots X1B) (%) |
>1 (ou >0,5) |
|||
children 2-5 years |
Low serum retinol (%) |
>15 |
|||
children <5 years |
Mortality () |
>50 (ou 20-50) |
indicates a problem could exist and that additional investigations are necessary
The four key elements of food security are: availability of food, access to sufficient food, stability of food supplies and cultural acceptability.
The very general concept of food security may be analyzed at various levels - national, regional, household or individual level. Examining different levels is often crucial because food security at one level does not necessarily imply security at other levels. Hence the very wide diversity and heterogeneity of indicators. A clear conceptual framework, such as that proposed by IAWG/FIVIMS, is therefore particularly important in order to make a relevant choice (see FIVIMS, 2002).
The indicators corresponding to the first three major categories, namely food availability, access to food and stability of supplies have here been grouped together; the fourth (acceptability) requires specific qualitative surveys for which defining standardized indicators is more difficult.
The FAOSTAT database is the source of information on food availability at national level with the largest geographical coverage. Moreover, it provides complete series of yearly data since 1961 (FAO).
TABLE 7
Food availability
INDICATORS |
USED BY |
|
National food balance statistics (FAO)[13] |
||
|
CFS |
|
For FAO (2003), the following percentages serve to assess progress achieved: |
FIVIMS |
|
|
- <2.5% extremely low |
MDG1 |
- 2.5-<5% very low |
|
|
- 5-<20% moderately low |
|
|
- 20-<35% moderately high |
|
|
³35% very high |
|
|
|
CFS |
|
|
CFS |
|
|
|
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
|
|
|
CFS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production, cropped areas and yields |
||
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
CFS |
|
|
CFS |
|
|
|
|
Production, cropped areas and yields |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
|
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MDG7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Means of production at household level |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Means of production at household level |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem here is primarily one of financial accessibility, where food security, poverty and undernutrition are closely linked.
TABLE 8
Access to food by
households
INDICATORS |
USED BY |
Prices and income |
|
|
CFS |
|
CFS |
|
FIVIMS |
|
FIVIMS |
|
CFS |
|
|
|
|
|
CFS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poverty |
|
|
MDG1 |
|
CFS |
|
MDG1 |
|
MDG1 |
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
|
CFS |
|
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
Infrastructure |
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
FIVIMS |
|
FIVIMS |
Living standards of households |
|
|
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
|
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
|
|
Living standards of households |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Food consumption |
|
|
|
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
|
|
TABLE 9
Stability of food supplies
INDICATORS |
USED BY |
|
CFS |
|
FIVIMS |
|
FIVIMS |
|
|
|
|
|
CFS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIVIMS |
[9] The
international references for the standardised indicators are to be found
in: WHO, 1983; WHO, 1995; Shetty & James, 1993.
[10] Consult: WHO, UNICEF & ICCIDD, 1994 and WHO, 2001a. [11] For prevalence indicators, refer to: IVACG, 2002, supplemented by WHO, 1996b. For ocular cytology, refer to McLaren & Frigg, 2002; Chowdhury et al., 1996. The recommended intake refers to a FAO/WHO expert consultation (FAO & WHO, 2002). [12] See: WHO, 2001 b. [13] See: FAO/SOFI (2004) and FAOSTAT database at: http://apps.fao.org/faostat/collections?version=ext&hasbulk=0&subset=nutrition. |