ArticleFood policy2023
Comparing delivery channels to promote nutrition-sensitive agriculture: A cluster-randomized controlled trial in Bangladesh.
Article in Food policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender differences in access to extension services and major farm inputs among paddy seed growers in Rautahat district of Nepal.Frontiers in sociology · 2026Article
- Can nutrition-sensitive agriculture interventions address intersectional inequalities in women's diets? A mediation analysis using cross-sectional trial data from Odisha, India.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Nutrition Security and Homestead Gardeners: Evidence from the Himalayan Mountain Region.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Performance of the Global Diet Quality Score (GDQS) App in Predicting Nutrient Adequacy and Metabolic Risk Factors among Thai Adults.The Journal of nutrition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We use a randomized controlled trial in rural Bangladesh to compare two models of delivering nutrition content jointly to husbands and wives: deploying female nutrition workers versus mostly male agriculture extension workers. Both approaches increased nutrition knowledge of men and women, household and individual diet quality, and women's empowerment. Intervention effects on agriculture and nutrition knowledge, agricultural production diversity, dietary diversity, women's empowerment, and gender parity do not significantly differ between models where nutrition workers versus agriculture extension workers provide the training. The exception is in an attitudes score, where results indicate same-sex agents may affect scores differently than opposite-sex agents. Our results suggest opposite-sex agents may not necessarily be less effective in providing training. In South Asia, where agricultural extension systems and the pipeline to those systems are male-dominated, training men to deliver nutrition messages may offer a temporary solution to the shortage of female extension workers and offer opportunities to scale and promote nutrition-sensitive agriculture. However, in both models, we find evidence that the presence of mothers-in-law within households modifies the programs' effectiveness on some nutrition, empowerment, and attitude measures, suggesting that accounting for other influential household members is a potential area for future programming.
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.