ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2019
Mixed methods evaluation explains bypassing of vouchers in micronutrient powder trial in Mozambique.
Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beneficiary and Local Stakeholder Participation in Community-Based Nutrition Interventions.Current developments in nutrition · 2022Article
- Micronutrient powder programs: New findings and future directions for implementation science.Maternal & child nutrition · 2019Review
- Mixed methods evaluation explains bypassing of vouchers in micronutrient powder trial in Mozambique.Maternal & child nutrition · 2019Article
- Designing an ethnographic interview for evaluation of micronutrient powder trial: Challenges and opportunities for implementation science.Maternal & child nutrition · 2019Review
- Implementation Science in Nutrition: Concepts and Frameworks for an Emerging Field of Science and Practice.Current developments in nutrition · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Micronutrient powders (MNP) are recommended by the World Health Organization as an effective intervention to address anaemia in children. A formative process evaluation was conducted to assess the viability of a model using free vouchers in two districts of Mozambique to deliver MNP and motivate adherence to recommendations regarding its use. The evaluation consisted of (a) an examination of programme outcomes using a cross-sectional survey among caregivers of children 6-23 months (n = 1,028) and (b) an ethnographic study to investigate delivery experiences and MNP use from caregiver perspectives (n = 59), programme managers (n = 17), and programme implementers (n = 168). Using a mixed methods approach allowed exploration of unexpected programme outcomes and triangulation of findings. The survey revealed that receiving a voucher was the main implementation bottleneck. Although few caregivers received vouchers (11.5%, CI [9.7, 13.6]), one-fourth received MNP by bypassing the voucher system (26.3%, CI [23.6, 29.0]). Caregivers' narratives indicated that caregivers were motivated to redeem vouchers but encountered obstacles, including not knowing where or how to redeem them or finding MNP were not available at the shop. Observing these challenges, many programme implementers redeemed vouchers and distributed MNP to caregivers. Virtually, all caregivers who received MNP reported ever feeding it to their child. This study's findings are consistent with other studies across a range of contexts suggesting that although programmes are generally effective in motivating initial use, more attention is required to improve access to MNP and support continued use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.