ArticleHealth policy and planning2024
A process evaluation of a family planning, livelihoods and conservation project in Rukiga, Western Uganda.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2024. 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.
- Trends and Determinants of Unmet Need for Family Planning Among Adolescent Girls and Young Women Aged 15-24 Years in Nepal: Evidence from Three Demographic and Health Surveys.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Article
- Cross-sectoral integration can support reproductive choice, violence reduction and social cohesion: experiences from a climate-stressed district of rural Uganda.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Climate change, livelihoods, gender and violence in Rukiga, Uganda: Intersections and pathways.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- The puzzle of intersectoral collaboration and health. Revisiting implementation research.Health policy and planning · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Although Population-Health-Environment (PHE) approaches have been implemented and studied for several decades, there are limited data on whether, how and why they work. This study provides a process evaluation of the 'Healthy Wetlands for the Cranes and People of Rukiga, Uganda' project, implemented by an NGO-local hospital consortium. This programme involved a research design element, testing two delivery modalities to understand the added benefit of integrating conservation, livelihoods and human health interventions, compared to delivering sector support services separately (as is more usual). The process evaluation sought to understand how the programme was implemented, the mechanisms of impact, how it was shaped by the context in which it was delivered and whether there were discernable differences across the two delivery arms. Methods involved key informant interviews with implementing staff and community educators, a review of programme documents and secondary qualitative analysis of interviews and focus groups with community members. The findings include a statistically significant increase in the reach of the programme, in both service delivery and sensitization activities, when the sectors were fully integrated. It appears that this comparative advantage of integration is because of the improved acceptability and motivation among stakeholders, and increased initiative (and agency) taken by community-based peer educators and community members. We argue that the 'software' of the programme underpins these mechanisms of impact: trust-based relationships embedded in the system enabled coordinated leadership, supported local staff agency and encouraged motivation.
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.