ArticleBMC public health2024
Positive deviance/hearth intervention in collaboration between academia and NGOs: a realist evaluation.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous NGOs and donors from high-income countries (HICs) offer diverse funding to assist LMICs. A collaborative effort in nutrition programs in urban communities was conducted by an international NGO with a local university, representing the NGO's first mode of partnership with academia. This study used realist evaluation to understand how and why Positive Deviance/Hearth intervention conducted by NGOs collaborated with university work or failed to work in urban population. We uncovered the underlying mechanisms that lead to certain outcomes in different situations of academia-NGO partnership. The initial program theory was formulated after discussions with main program officers from both NGO and academia. We conducted stakeholder interviews and FGD, along with validation and reviewing secondary data. The initial program theory underwent testing and refinement through a series of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) involving program officers and local government health offices. We adhered to the RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations when presenting the findings. Five Context Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configurations are identified from three program theories. Our findings illustrate the importance of considering the local context of the population when implementing standardized international NGO interventions. All the CMOs indicate that at the very least, collaborative programs between academia and NGOs should involve more stakeholder involvement and build clearer expectations between stakeholders.
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.