Analysis of responses to effects of COVID-19 pandemic on diets of urban slum dwellers in Nairobi, Kenya

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of survey response rate.

Survey rounds	Kibera	Mathare	Overall
R1	796	502	1,298
R2	555	352	907
R3	574	397	971
R4	417	254	671
Balanced panel	266	171	437

Table 2. Summary of between-wave attrition.

Variable		Attrition rate
Original sample	1,298
% Attrition between R1 & R2		30.1
% Attrition between R2 & R3		−7.1
% Attrition between R3 & R4		30.9

Table 3. Reasons for attrition, percentage of participants who did not take part in the survey after R1.

Reason	R2	R3	R4
Refused to be interviewed	4.9	4.4	4.8
No response (the call was not picked)	48.1	35.9	47.3
The phone was switched off	20.8	28.7	19.1
Wrong number given during the first survey	14.7	6.6	19.0
Unable to complete interviews	5.4	8.8	0
Phone number out of service	3.3	11.1	7.1
Migrated to rural areas	2.9	4.4	2.7
n	391	327	627

Figure 1. Trends in dietary intake during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 4. Household demographic characteristics.

Demographic characteristics	R1	R2	R3	R4	Overall	Diff	Diff	Diff
	mean	mean	mean	mean	mean	R2-R1	R3-R2	R4-R3
Sex of head (female = 1)	40.5	40.1	38.7	39.6	39.8	−0.40	0.02	−0.01
	(49.2)	(49.3)	(48.8)	(48.9)	(48.9)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Years of schooling of head	10.3	10.1	9.7	10.2	10.1	−0.20	0.58	−0.49
	(8.3)	(8.3)	(7.1)	(7.0)	(7.7)	(0.56)	(0.52)	(0.48)
Marital status (Married = 1)	59.27	59.47	58.58	59.27	59.10	0.20	0.01	−0.01
	(49.1)	(49.2)	(49.3)	(49.2)	(49.2)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Number of male HH members	2.1	2.1	2.3	2.2	2.2	0.00	−0.14*	0.07
	(1.3)	(1.3)	(1.3)	(1.3)	(1.3)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)
Number of female HH members	2.4	2.3	2.6	2.5	2.4	−0.10	−0.22**	0.08
	(1.3)	(1.3)	(1.3)	(1.5)	(1.3)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)
Occupation of the head
None	72.1	64.1	10.5	8.2	38.7	−8.00***	0.62***	0.02
	(44.9)	(44.9)	(30.7)	(27.5)	(49.1)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.02)
Salaried employment	11.4	11.4	6.4	7.1	9.1	0.00	0.05***	−0.01
	(31.9)	(30.9)	(24.5)	(25.7)	(28.8)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Casual labor	16.3	24.3	62.7	62.7	41.5	8.00***	−0.46***	0.00
	(36.9)	(36.9)	(48.4)	(48.4)	(48.9)	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Self-employment or business	0.2	0.2	20.4	22.0	10.7	0.00	−0.20***	−0.02
	(4.8)	(4.8)	(40.3)	(41.5)	(30.9)	(0.00)	(0.02)	(0.03)
Monthly household income (KES)		8500.0	4989.9	7891.2	7277.9	–	−3510.1***	2901.3***
		(7945.0)	(4055.7)	(6049.9)	(6340.2)	–	(566.4)	(431.1)
Observations	437	437	437	437	1748	874	874	874

Standard errors in parentheses.

* p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Table 5. FCG by survey wave.

FCG	R1 (%)	R2 (%)	R3 (%)	R4 (%)	Overall (%)
Poor	14.4	7.6	10.9	4.6	9.4
Borderline	5.7	12.6	31.4	9.8	14.9
Acceptable	79.9	79.8	57.7	85.6	75.7
Unacceptable	20.1	20.2	42.3	14.4	24.3
Acceptable	79.9	79.8	57.7	85.6	75.7
n	437	437	437	437	1,748

Figure 2. Household dietary transitions.

Figure 3. Food consumption trends of oscillator households across survey waves.

Table 6. Summary of response strategies used by urban slum households during COVID-19 pandemic.

Response strategies		R1		R2		R3		R4		Overall
		%	SD	%	SD	%	SD	%	SD	%	SD
Changing consumption patterns	Eating smaller meals	89.7	30.4	78.0	41.5	84.2	36.5	86.5	34.2	84.6	36.1
	Eating less preferred foods	91.3	28.2	87.0	33.7	70.0	45.9	86.5	34.2	83.7	37.0
	Skipping meals in a day	90.2	29.8	62.7	48.4	83.3	37.3	72.3	44.8	77.1	42.0
	Eating less variety of foods	93.6	24.5	52.9	50.0	62.2	48.5	26.8	44.3	58.9	49.2
Food access order	Letting children eat first	19.7	39.8	19.7	39.8	26.1	44.0	14.0	34.7	19.9	39.9
Self-produced food	Relying on own production	1.8	13.4	2.0	13.4	1.6	12.6	1.1	10.6	1.6	12.6
Reorganizing finances	Using savings to buy food	24.0	42.8	24.0	42.8	21.5	41.1	17.2	37.7	21.7	41.2
Reliance on social networks	Borrowing money to buy food	48.3	50.0	43.1	50.0	38.2	48.6	33.4	47.2	42.0	49.4
	Food donations	16.9	37.5	12.9	33.5	6.6	24.9	7.6	26.5	12.0	32.5
Family size management	Sending HH members home	36.6	48.2	36.6	48.2	30.9	46.3	31.4	46.4	33.9	47.3

Mean percentages are presented with standard deviations; SD: Standard deviation.

Table 7. Effects of response strategies on household food consumption scores.

Variables	FCS	SE
Sex of household head (Female = 1)	−1.140	(3.859)
Having a spouse (Dummy)	−0.750	(4.038)
Household size	−0.727	(0.668)
Eating smaller meals (Dummy)	−3.872	(2.907)
Eating less preferred foods (Dummy)	7.959***	(2.477)
Skipping meals in a day (Dummy)	−11.68***	(2.208)
Letting children eat first (Dummy)	−2.269	(2.323)
Depending on own production (Dummy)	6.712	(6.390)
Using savings to buy food (Dummy)	2.565	(2.379)
Using borrowed money to buy food (Dummy)	2.190	(1.870)
Relying on donations (Dummy)	1.811	(2.692)
Sending members of the household home (Dummy)	−5.170**	(2.038)
Eating less variety of foods (Dummy)	−5.134***	(1.727)
Household income	0.000345**	(0.000161)
Year of education of the head	0.0661	(0.167)
Occupation (Salaried = 1)	3.490	(3.792)
Occupation (Casual labor = 1)	0.241	(1.991)
Occupation (Self-employment = 1)	6.497**	(2.927)
Constant	67.91***	(5.740)
sigma_u	17.184926
sigma_e	18.980896
Rho	0.45046286
Observations	927
Number of households	435
R-squared (overall)	0.165

Standard errors in parentheses.

*** p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1.

Figure A1. FCGs and weights. Source: WFP (2006).

Table A1. Confirmatory attrition bias analysis using logistic regression.

Variables	Participation	SE
Having a spouse (Yes = 1)	0.142	(0.190)
Sex of head (Female = 1)	0.247	(0.188)
Year of education of head	−0.008	(0.007)
Occupation (Salaried = 1)	0.0989	(0.191)
Occupation (Casual labor = 1)	0.106	(0.168)
Occupation (Self-employment = 1)	−0.514	(1.127)
Household size	0.0560	(0.032)
Eating less preferred foods (Dummy)	−0.184	(0.366)
Eating less variety of foods	0.736	(0.445)
Eating small meals	−0.795	(0.382)
Skipping meals	0.484	(0.306)
Constant	−1.277* *	(0.318)
Observations	1298
LR chi2(11)	14.48
Prob > chi2	0.2074
Log-likelihood	−821.9248
Pseudo R2	0.0087

Standard errors in parentheses.

***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .1.

Table A2. Proportions of households consuming different food categories over the survey waves.

Food Categories	R1		R2		R3		R4		Overall
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Staples	97.9	14.2	100.0	0.0	99.8	4.8	100.0	0.0	99.4	7.5
Nuts and Pulses	37.3	48.4	38.2	48.6	60.9	48.9	59.0	49.2	48.9	50.0
Vegetable	99.8	4.8	99.8	4.8	99.8	4.8	99.8	4.8	99.8	4.8
Fruits	50.8	50.1	59.3	49.2	64.5	47.9	62.2	48.5	59.2	49.2
Meat, Fish & Eggs	76.9	42.2	66.4	47.3	76.0	42.8	78.5	41.1	74.4	43.6
Milk	51.7	50.0	62.5	48.5	56.8	49.6	72.1	44.9	60.8	48.8
Sugar	51.7	50.0	95.7	20.4	97.3	16.4	96.8	17.6	85.4	35.4
Fats & Oils	76.9	42.2	98.6	11.7	99.8	4.8	98.4	12.6	93.4	24.8

Table A3. Frequency of consumption of different food categories in 7 d over the survey waves.

Food Categories	R1		R2		R3		R4		Overall
	mean	se	mean	se	mean	se	Mean	se	mean	se
Staples	6.8	0.03	6.9	0.02	6.5	0.06	6.8	0.03	6.8	0.02
Pulses	0.8	0.07	0.7	0.05	1.2	0.07	1.2	0.06	1.0	0.03
Vegetable	5.7	0.08	6.7	0.04	6.0	0.08	6.8	0.04	6.3	0.03
Fruits	1.6	0.10	6.6	0.06	2.0	0.11	6.5	0.07	4.1	0.07
Meat, Fish, Eggs	6.8	0.04	7.0	0.00	2.0	0.09	7.0	0.00	5.7	0.06
Milk	2.2	0.13	2.6	0.13	2.4	0.13	3.0	0.13	2.6	0.06
Sugar	2.2	0.13	7.0	0.01	6.5	0.08	7.0	0.01	5.7	0.06
Fats & Oils	6.8	0.04	6.4	0.06	6.7	0.05	6.5	0.07	6.6	0.03

WFP. (2006). Food consumption analysis: calculation and use of the food consumption score in food security analysis. WFP.

 Google Scholar