Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27003730›Full record

ArticleEvaluation and program planning2016

Planning an integrated agriculture and health program and designing its evaluation: Experience from Western Kenya.

Donald C Cole, Carol Levin, Cornelia Loechl, Graham Thiele, Frederick Grant, Aimee Webb Girard, Kirimi Sindi, Jan Low

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evaluation and program planning, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Donald C ColeDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; International Potato Center (CIP), Peru. Electronic address: donald.cole@utoronto.ca.
Carol LevinUniversity of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Cornelia LoechlInternational Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
Graham ThieleCGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas, Lima, Peru.
Frederick GrantCIP, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Aimee Webb GirardRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, GA, USA.
Kirimi SindiCIP, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jan LowCIP, Nairobi, Kenya.
International Potato Center · KEEmory University · USInternational Atomic Energy Agency · ATUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-sectoral programs that involve stakeholders in agriculture, nutrition and health care are essential for responding to nutrition problems such as vitamin A deficiency among pregnant and lactating women and their infants in many poor areas of lower income countries. Yet planning such multi-sectoral programs and designing appropriate evaluations, to respond to different disciplinary cultures of evidence, remain a challenge. We describe the context, program development process, and evaluation design of the Mama SASHA project (Sweetpotato Action for Security and Health in Africa) which promoted production and consumption of a bio-fortified, orange-fleshed sweetpotato (OFSP). In planning the program we drew upon information from needs assessments, stakeholder consultations, and a first round of the implementation evaluation of a pilot project. The multi-disciplinary team worked with partner organizations to develop a program theory of change and an impact pathway which identified aspects of the program that would be monitored and established evaluation methods. Responding to the growing demand for greater rigour in impact evaluations, we carried out quasi-experimental allocation by health facility catchment area, repeat village surveys for assessment of change in intervention and control areas, and longitudinal tracking of individual mother-child pairs. Mid-course corrections in program implementation were informed by program monitoring, regular feedback from implementers and partners' meetings. To assess economic efficiency and provide evidence for scaling we collected data on resources used and project expenses. Managing the multi-sectoral program and the mixed methods evaluation involved bargaining and trade-offs that were deemed essential to respond to the array of stakeholders, program funders and disciplines involved.

Indexed as

Intersectoral CollaborationAgricultureFood SupplyHealth PlanningHealth PromotionHumansIpomoea batatasKenyaNutritional StatusProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationAgricultureBio-fortificationDevelopment evaluationMaternal and child healthMicronutrientMulti-sectoral programNutritionVitamin A

Identifiers

PMID27003730
PMCPMC4863223
OpenAlexW2301037950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.