Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32513863›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2020

How to design a complex behaviour change intervention: experiences from a nutrition-sensitive agriculture trial in rural India.

Helen Harris-Fry, Meghan O'Hearn, Ronali Pradhan, Sneha Krishnan, Nirmala Nair, Suchitra Rath, Shibanand Rath, Peggy Koniz-Booher, Heather Danton, Ashley Aakesson and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Helen Harris-FryDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK helen.harris-fry@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2367-908X
Meghan O'HearnFriedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA.
Ronali PradhanDigital Green, Bhubaneswar, India.
Sneha KrishnanDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Nirmala NairEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Suchitra RathEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Shibanand RathEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Peggy Koniz-BooherJohn Snow Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Heather DantonJohn Snow Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ashley AakessonJohn Snow Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Shibananth PradhanVARRAT, Keonjhar, India.
Naba Kishore MishraVARRAT, Keonjhar, India.
Abhinav KumarDigital Green, Bhubaneswar, India.
Avinash UpadhayDigital Green, Bhubaneswar, India.
Audrey ProstUniversity College London Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Suneetha KadiyalaDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Ekjut · INJohn Snow (United States) · USLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBTufts University · USUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 210894/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many public health interventions aim to promote healthful behaviours, with varying degrees of success. With a lack of existing empirical evidence on the optimal number or combination of behaviours to promote to achieve a given health outcome, a key challenge in intervention design lies in deciding what behaviours to prioritise, and how best to promote them. We describe how key behaviours were selected and promoted within a multisectoral nutrition-sensitive agriculture intervention that aimed to address maternal and child undernutrition in rural India. First, we formulated a Theory of Change, which outlined our hypothesised impact pathways. To do this, we used the following inputs: existing conceptual frameworks, published empirical evidence, a feasibility study, formative research and the intervention team's local knowledge. Then, we selected specific behaviours to address within each impact pathway, based on our formative research, behaviour change models, local knowledge and community feedback. As the intervention progressed, we mapped each of the behaviours against our impact pathways and the transtheoretical model of behaviour change, to monitor the balance of behaviours across pathways and along stages of behaviour change. By collectively agreeing on definitions of complex concepts and hypothesised impact pathways, implementing partners were able to communicate clearly between each other and with intervention participants. Our intervention was iteratively informed by continuous review, by monitoring implementation against targets and by integrating community feedback. Impact and process evaluations will reveal whether these approaches are effective for improving maternal and child nutrition, and what the effects are on each hypothesised impact pathway.

Indexed as

Nutritional StatusRural PopulationAgricultureChildHealth BehaviorHumansIndiachild healthCluster randomised trialmaternal healthnutrition

Identifiers

PMID32513863
PMCPMC7282327
OpenAlexW3033818546

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.