From Claudine Prudhon: Dear Rogers, There are not a lot of research on this subject. However, you can have a look at these two papers, showing that MUAC seems to respond to changes in food security. Briend A, Hasan KZ, Aziz KM, Hoque BA, Henry FJ: Measuring change in nutritional status: a comparison of different anthropometric indices and the sample sizes required. Eur J Clin Nutr 1989, 43(11):769-778. Mude A, Barrett CB, McPeak JG, Kaitho R, Kristjanson P: Empirical Forecasting of Slow-Onset Disasters for Improved Emergency Response: an Application to Kenya’s Arid North. Food Policy 2009, 34(4):329-339. Claudine

Hi Claudine and Sonya Thanks for your responses and links . I have looked at the Review of Nutrition and Mortality Indicators for the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) , Reference Levels and Decision-making , September 2009 it indicates that WH is a better indicator for monitoring nutritional status trends in response to changes in food insecurity. Anyone with links/documents with the study on this ? Thanks

Hello, I would like to reiterate Rogers question. The IPC document from 2009 indicates that WFH is a better indicator for monitoring nutritional status trends in response to changes in food insecurity. I have not found any study showing this. Would anyone have links/documents to share? Many thanks in advance!

I agree with Severine, this issue has been quite at the center of competing theories for some time now among humanitarian practitioners and academicians and not much light has been shade from the scientific community either, despite the massive evolution of data and research in the area. I would very much like to have access to scientific publications pertaining the issue. I remember World Vision was doing some research on this area about two years ago in some East African countries (Ethiopia?). It would be great if we can get access to findings of such studies.

[url=http://www.brixtonhealth.com/Briend1989.pdf]Here[/url] is an article by André Briend on this topic. I hope this is useful.

Thanks Mark, Claudine had mentioned that one. If I understand is correctly, that paper does not say WFH is better.

It seems that you can use weight change, MUAC, or W/H. I would do this with samples of comparable age-structure (like the ACF "Listening Post" surveillance system). MUAC would likely be cheapest and most practicable. The article supports the use of sampled mean and, by extension, prevalence estimated by PROBIT. Both approaches make better use of the sample than a classic prevalence estimator.