ArticleBMC public health2022
Assessment of regional networks on nutrition in South Asia: a multi-methods study.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany national and international organizations are working to improve maternal and child nutrition in countries with high malnutrition prevalence and burdens. While there has been progress in strengthening multi-organizational networks on nutrition at country and global levels, the regional level has received much less attention. We conducted a study to 1) determine the existing relationships and levels of engagement between international organizations working to improve nutrition at the regional level or in at least two countries in South Asia; and 2) examine the experiences and perspectives of international organizations on regional-level communication, coordination or collaboration on nutrition in South Asia.
methodsA mixed methods approach involving organizational network analysis (ONA) and semi-structured interviews was used to develop an understanding of the existing network and relationships between international organizations working on nutrition in South Asia. ONA data from 43 international organizations was analysed using a social network analysis software (UCINET) to systematically quantify and visualize the patterns of relationships between organizations.
resultsWe found a high degree of connectivity between most of the international organizations in South Asia, but there were gaps between the many organizations that knew each other and the work they did together regionally on nutrition. Most organizations worked together only 'rarely' or 'sometimes' on nutrition at the regional level and high-intensity (collaborative) working relationships were uncommon. Organizations of the same type tended to cluster together, and a small number of UN agencies and multilateral organizations were central brokers in the nutrition working relationships. Perceived constraints to the nutrition working relationships included organizations' agenda and mandate, threats to visibility and branding, human and financial resources, history, trust and power relations with other organizations, absence of a regional network for cooperation, and donor expectations. There was high demand to remedy this situation and to put network mechanisms in place to strengthen communication, coordination and collaboration on nutrition.
conclusionsOpportunities are being missed for organizations to work together on nutrition at the regional level in South Asia. The effectiveness of regional nutrition networks in influencing policy or programme decisions and resources for nutrition at country level should be explored.
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.