ArticleThe Journal of nutrition2026
Interpersonal Communication and Maternal Behavioral Practice: A Case Study of Explanatory Causal Machine Learning in Nepal.
Article in The Journal of nutrition, 2026. 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
backgroundThere is increasing interest not only in whether a program produced impacts but also the mechanisms through which the impacts were produced. Studies of nutrition interventions have frequently highlighted the role of nutrition education interventions, but few studies have investigated the paths through which those interventions achieve impact.
objectivesWe assessed the total effect of maternal exposure to interpersonal communication with a frontline worker on behavioral practice and the degree to which that effect operated through 2 key pathways: improved awareness and knowledge. We also conducted a comparative case study examining the differences between machine learning (ML) and structural equation model (SEM) approaches.
methodsWe used data from the endline cross-sectional survey of the quasi-experimental Suaahara study of 2040 mothers with a child less than 2 years of age. We estimated the total effect of maternal exposure to interpersonal communication with a frontline worker on her nutrition-related practices and the indirect effects through improvements in awareness and knowledge using ML and conventional SEMs. Models were adjusted for household, child, and maternal factors as well as household location.
resultsMaternal exposure to interpersonal communication with a frontline worker translated into practicing more of the ideal, promoted nutrition-related practices. Both methods suggested a similar total effect-ML: 0.58 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.78) and SEM: 0.60 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.72). ML models, however, attributed a much larger proportion of that total effect to indirect effects operating through awareness and knowledge (ML: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.33; SEMs: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.21).
conclusionsInterpersonal communication improved nutrition-related practices, in part due to increasing one's awareness and knowledge. The disparities in results between ML and SEMs suggested that the production of effects is a more complex, nonlinear or interactive function of awareness, knowledge, treatment and covariates than what is captured by simple linear models.
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.