Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28960877›Full record

ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2017

Experiences and lessons learned for programme improvement of micronutrient powders interventions.

Marieke Vossenaar, Alison Tumilowicz, Alexis D'Agostino, Anabelle Bonvecchio, Ruben Grajeda, Cholpon Imanalieva, Laura Irizarry, Generose Mulokozi, Minarto Noto Sudardjo, Narantsetseg Tsevegsuren and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

11 authors.

Marieke VossenaarIndependent Consultant, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2101-2620
Alison TumilowiczGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8955-1479
Alexis D'AgostinoStrengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in Nutrition Globally, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Anabelle BonvecchioInstituto Nacional de Salud Publica, Cuernavaca, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-2765-0818
Ruben GrajedaPan-American Health Organization, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6391-7463
Cholpon ImanalievaUNICEF, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.ORCID 0000-0002-6353-1496
Laura IrizarryIndependent Consultant, Lima, Peru.
Generose MulokoziTanzania Food and Nutrition Center, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Minarto Noto SudardjoMillennium Challenge Account, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Narantsetseg TsevegsurenWorld Vision International, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Lynnette M NeufeldGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2652-9108

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continual course correction during implementation of nutrition programmes is critical to address factors that might limit coverage and potential for impact. Programme improvement requires rigorous scientific inquiry to identify and address implementation pathways and the factors that affect them. Under the auspices of "The Micronutrient Powders Consultation: Lessons Learned for Operational Guidance," 3 working groups were formed to summarize experiences and lessons across countries regarding micronutrient powder (MNP) interventions for young children. This paper focuses on how MNP interventions undertook key elements of programme improvement, specifically, the use of programme theory, monitoring, process evaluation, and supportive supervision. Methods included a review of published and grey literature, interviews with key informants, and deliberations throughout the consultation process. We found that although much has been written and published about the use of monitoring and process evaluation to inform MNP interventions at small scale, there has been little formal documentation of lessons for the transition from pilot to scaled implementation. Supervision processes and experiences are not documented, and to our knowledge, there is no evidence of whether they have been effective to improve implementation. Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of interventions requires identification of critical indicators for detecting implementation challenges and drivers of impact, integration with existing programmes and systems, strengthened technical capacity, and financing for implementation of effective monitoring systems. Our understanding of programme improvement for MNP interventions is still incomplete, especially outside of the pilot stage, and we propose a set of implementation research questions that require further investigation.

Indexed as

Program EvaluationAnemia, Iron-DeficiencyDietary SupplementsFood AssistanceFood, FortifiedHealth Plan ImplementationHealth PromotionHumansInfantInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaMicronutrientsPowdersUnited StatesUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentMicronutrientsPowdersevidence-based practiceinfant and child nutritioniron deficiency anaemiamicronutrientsmonitoring and evaluationprogramme evaluation

Identifiers

PMID28960877
PMCPMC5656835

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.