Figure 1Bayesian network: a simplified conceptual hierarchical framework for diarrhea.
Figure 2Frequency network showing posterior probabilities (%).
Figure 3Frequency network showing posterior probabilities (%) when there is evidence that the child belongs to a family in the poorest quintile.
Figure 4Frequency network showing posterior probabilities (%) of developing diarrhea when there is evidence that the child belongs to family in the poorest quintile, has poor sanitation conditions and is malnourished.
Table 1Logistic regression estimates and model summaries
|
Coefficient |
SE |
z-value |
p-value |
LR1 |
|
|
|
|
Residual deviance = 2338.9, df = 2738, AIC = 2342.9 |
Intercept |
-1.32 |
0.12 |
-10.86 |
< 0.001 |
Income |
-0.14 |
0.04 |
-3.43 |
< 0.001 |
LR2 |
Residual deviance = 2336.5, df = 2737, AIC = 2342.5 |
Intercept |
-1.34 |
0.12 |
-10.93 |
< 0.001 |
Income |
-0.15 |
0.04 |
-3.66 |
< 0.001 |
Sanitation |
0.18 |
0.08 |
2.23 |
0.01 |
LR3 |
|
|
|
|
Residual deviance = 2333.1, df = 2736, AIC = 2341.1 |
Intercept |
1.45 |
0.14 |
-10.58 |
< 0.001 |
Income |
-0.14 |
0.04 |
-3.29 |
< 0.001 |
Sanitation |
0.19 |
0.09 |
2.68 |
0.01 |
Malnutrition |
0.21 |
0.09 |
2.31 |
0.01 |
Table 2CPT for terminal node diarrhea
Malnutrition |
Sanitation |
Income |
Diarrhea
|
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
Poorest |
0.83 |
0.17 |
|
|
Poorer |
0.90 |
0.10 |
|
|
Middle |
0.88 |
0.12 |
|
|
Richer |
0.84 |
0.16 |
|
|
Richest |
0.89 |
0.11 |
|
Yes |
Poorest |
0.86 |
0.14 |
|
|
Poorer |
0.90 |
0.10 |
|
|
Middle |
0.83 |
0.17 |
|
|
Richer |
0.79 |
0.21 |
|
|
Richest |
0.86 |
0.14 |
Yes |
No |
Poorest |
0.80 |
0.20 |
|
|
Poorer |
0.84 |
0.16 |
|
|
Middle |
0.79 |
0.21 |
|
|
Richer |
0.82 |
0.18 |
|
|
Richest |
0.94 |
0.06 |
|
Yes |
Poorest |
0.81 |
0.19 |
|
|
Poorer |
0.80 |
0.20 |
|
|
Middle |
0.79 |
0.21 |
|
|
Richer |
0.88 |
0.12 |
|
|
Richest |
0.78 |
0.22 |
Table 3CPT for sanitation
Income |
Sanitation
|
No |
Yes |
Poorest |
0.89 |
0.11 |
Poorer |
0.67 |
0.33 |
Middle |
0.67 |
0.33 |
Richer |
0.58 |
0.42 |
Richest |
0.68 |
0.32 |
Table 4MPT for income
Income |
Proportion |
Poorest |
0.20 |
Poorer |
0.22 |
Middle |
0.25 |
Richer |
0.18 |
Richest |
0.15 |
Table 5CPT for malnutrition
Sanitation |
Income |
Malnutrition
|
No |
Yes |
No |
Poorest |
0.60 |
0.40 |
|
Poorer |
0.88 |
0.12 |
|
Middle |
0.63 |
0.37 |
|
Richer |
0.62 |
0.38 |
|
Richest |
0.77 |
0.23 |
Yes |
Poorest |
0.63 |
0.37 |
|
Poorer |
0.87 |
0.13 |
|
Middle |
0.67 |
0.33 |
|
Richer |
0.70 |
0.30 |
|
Richest |
0.77 |
0.23 |
Table 6Comparison frequencies (%) from the data and the adjusted frequencies (BN)
Factors |
Empirical |
Adjusted (Bf |
Sanitation |
Yes |
31.24 |
30.07 |
No |
68.76 |
69.93 |
Malnutrition |
|
|
Yes |
30.62 |
29.25 |
No |
69.38 |
70.75 |
Diarrhea |
Yes |
15.36 |
14.97 |
No |
84.64 |
85.03 |