Dataset Information

Sensitivity of Nutrition Indicators to Measure the Impact of a Multi-Sectoral Intervention: Cross-Sectional, Household, and Individual Level Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Interventions tackling multiple drivers of child malnutrition have potential, yet the evidence is limited and draws on different analysis and nutrition outcomes, reducing comparability. To better understand the advantages and disadvantages of three different analytical approaches on seven common nutrition indicators, we use panel data (2012, 2014, 2015) on 1420 households from a randomized control study of a multi-sectoral intervention in Chad. We compare program impact using three types of analysis: a cross-sectional analysis of non-matched children; a panel analysis on longitudinal outcomes following the worst-off child in the household; and a panel analysis on longitudinal outcomes of matched children. We find that the sensitivity of the nutrition outcomes to program impact increases with each subsequent analytical approach, despite the reduction in sample size, as the analysis is able to control for more non-measured child and household characteristics. In the matched child panel analysis, the odds of a child being severely wasted were 76% lower (CI: 0.59-0.86, p = 0.001), the odds of being underweight were 33% lower (CI: 0.15-0.48, p = 0.012), and weight-for-height z-score was 0.19 standard deviations higher (CI: 0.09-0.28, p = 0.022) in the treatment versus control group. The study provides evidence for multi-sectoral interventions to tackle acute malnutrition and recommends the best practice analytical approach.

SUBMITTER: Marshak A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7246654 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sensitivity of Nutrition Indicators to Measure the Impact of a Multi-Sectoral Intervention: Cross-Sectional, Household, and Individual Level Analysis.

Marshak Anastasia A Young Helen H Radday Anne A Naumova Elena N EN

International journal of environmental research and public health 20200430 9

Interventions tackling multiple drivers of child malnutrition have potential, yet the evidence is limited and draws on different analysis and nutrition outcomes, reducing comparability. To better understand the advantages and disadvantages of three different analytical approaches on seven common nutrition indicators, we use panel data (2012, 2014, 2015) on 1420 households from a randomized control study of a multi-sectoral intervention in Chad. We compare program impact using three types of anal ...[more]

PMID: 32365830

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo implement and measure the effects of a multi-level multi-sectoral social behavior change (SBC) intervention in Agago District of Northern Uganda and to determine the potential for scale-up.InterventionCompare the Nutrition Impact and Positive Practice (NIPP) approach to a NIPP+ approach. The NIPP approach involves nutrition education and SBC, whereas the NIPP+ adds agricultural inputs, training, and tools to support improved farm and water quality practices. The intervention effect will be measured through lower levels of aflatoxin in grain, lower water contamination, and improved knowledge on nutrition and health.DesignThis is a three-arm cluster-randomized controlled superiority trial (cRCT). The study arms include the following: group 1: NIPP; group 2: NIPP+, and group 3: control. Groups 1 and 2 will receive a 12-week intervention (NIPP or NIPP+) with active monitoring and longitudinal follow-up at 2, 6, and 12 months post-intervention. Additionally, an in-depth process and performance evaluation of each intervention arm will be undertaken using quantitative and qualitative methods. A total of 60 clusters from 5 subcounties of the Agago district will be randomly selected, and 15 households per cluster will be recruited using specific inclusion/exclusion criteria for a total of 900 households (300/arm). Respondents for the qualitative portion will be purposely selected.AnalysisWe will collect data from all participants at 3 time points: baseline, endline, and 12 months post-intervention. The analysis will utilize intent-to-treat (ITT) using the initial randomization of the treatment arms to determine the overall impact of having the NIPP vs. NIPP+ vs. control. Mixed effects models will be used to determine the role of time-variant and invariant individual household, and community characteristics, as well as measures of exposure and integration on key outcome indicators. A difference-in-difference analysis (baseline/endline, baseline/12 months post-intervention, endline/12 months post-intervention) will also be used to triangulate findings.Trial registrationNCT04209569 . One Nutrition in Complex Environments (ONCE) Registered 24 December 2019.

Project description:Objective: There is a demonstrated link between the mental health and substance use comorbidities experienced by young adults, however the vast majority of psychological interventions are disorder specific. Novel psychological approaches that adequately acknowledge the psychosocial complexity and transdiagnostic needs of vulnerable young people are urgently needed. A modular skills-based program for emotion regulation and impulse control (ERIC) addresses this gap. The current one armed open trial was designed to evaluate the impact that 12 weeks exposure to ERIC alongside usual care had on young people's ability to regulate emotions, as well as examine potential moderating mechanisms. Methods: Seventy nine young people (50.6% male; M = 19.30; SD = 2.94) were enrolled to the 12 week intervention period. Twenty one practitioners from youth and community health services delivered relevant ERIC modules adjunct to usual care. Linear mixed effects regression (with random intercept) was used to examine change over time across the primary outcome of emotion dysregulation and secondary outcomes of depression, anxiety, stress, experiential avoidance and mindfulness. Moderation analyses were conducted to test whether the magnitude of change in emotion dysregulation moderated change over time in secondary outcomes. Results: Analyses revealed significant improvement in the primary outcome of emotion dysregulation with a moderate effect size (Mean Change = -10.24, 95% CI (-14.41, -6.06; Cohen's dav = -0.53), in addition to decreases in the secondary outcomes of depression, anxiety, stress and experiential avoidance. No improvements in mindfulness were reported. Moderation analyses revealed that the residualised change over time in emotion dysregulation moderated the change over time in symptoms of distress, depression, anxiety, stress, experiential avoidance, and mindfulness. Conclusion: Reductions in the severity of emotion dysregulation, depression, anxiety, stress and experiential avoidance are promising, and were evident despite the complexity of the participants and the diversity of the service setting. The improvements found in each outcome were only observed for those young people whose emotion regulation also improved, providing preliminary evidence for the role of emotion regulation as a key treatment target in this population.

Project description:Silvio Daidone is a economist and Benjamin Davis is a Strategic Program Leader, both with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Sudhanshu Handa is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Paul Winters is the Associate Vice-President of the Strategy and Knowledge Department, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, Italy. The research presented in this article has been carried out under the auspices of the "From Protection to Production" (PtoP) project, a collaborative effort of the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The project has received funding from the DFID Research and Evidence Division, the European Union through the "Improved Global Governance for Hunger Reduction Programme", and the FAO Regular Fund. The authors would like to thank the following: two anonymous reviewers and the journal editor, who have provided excellent comments and significantly contributed to the improvement of the article; Alejandro Grinspun, Fabio Veras Soares, and Marco Knowles for technical review of previous drafts; Ervin Prifti and Noemi Pace for their useful suggestions and comments. The authors are also grateful to participants at the following conferences and workshops: 2017 APPAM International Conference, Brussels; 2016 Transfer Project workshop, Addis Ababa; 2016 IFAD-3IE Designing and implementing high-quality, policy-relevant impact evaluations, Rome; 2015 SASPEN Conference on Social Protection, Johannesburg; 2015 Global Food Security Conference, Ithaca; 2014 IPEA International Seminar "Social protection, entrepreneurship and labor market activation - Evidence for better policies", Brasilia; 2014 University of Florence, Department of Economics & Management Seminars, Florence; 2014 Africa Community of Practice (CoP) on Conditional Cash Transfers and Cash Transfers; 2014 African Union Expert Consultation on Children and Social Protection Systems, Cape Town; 2014 IDS Graduation and Social Protection Conference, Kigali. The authors would also like to remember Josh Dewbre, a founding member of the PtoP team, who passed away in April 2015, who had participated in the fieldwork and in the analysis of several programs included in this study. All mistakes and omissions are those of the authors.

Dataset Information

Sensitivity of Nutrition Indicators to Measure the Impact of a Multi-Sectoral Intervention: Cross-Sectional, Household, and Individual Level Analysis.

Publications

Sensitivity of Nutrition Indicators to Measure the Impact of a Multi-Sectoral Intervention: Cross-Sectional, Household, and Individual Level Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets