ArticleBMC nutrition2026
Implementation of multisectoral interventions to improve nutrition in Uganda: stakeholder perceptions and experiences.
Article in BMC 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalnutrition in sub-Saharan Africa remains a persistent public health challenge driven by food insecurity, inadequate health services, suboptimal caregiving practices, and weak livelihoods. Addressing these complex determinants requires multisectoral interventions that integrate nutrition, health, agriculture, and community development. The Uganda Community Connector (UCC) programme was designed to address these challenges through integrated, community-based approaches. This study explored stakeholder perceptions of UCC implementation strategies using the RE-AIM framework.
methodsA cross-sectional qualitative study grounded in Participatory Action Research was conducted in six UCC implementation districts in Uganda. Data were collected through key informant interviews with policymakers, health workers, and implementers, and focus group discussions with community members, including lactating mothers, youth, and community leaders. Thematic content analysis was conducted using a combined deductive approach based on the RE-AIM framework and inductive coding for emerging themes.
resultsThe UCC programme achieved broad reach among vulnerable populations, particularly women of reproductive age, children under five years, and youth, through community mobilisation and use of local leadership and existing local systems. Study participants reported high adoption of integrated nutrition, health, WASH, agriculture, and livelihood practices among participating households, supported by participatory training and group-based platforms such as Village Savings and Loan Associations. Stakeholders reported perceived improvements in dietary practices, hygiene behaviours, health-seeking practices, women's empowerment, and household livelihoods, alongside strengthened linkages between communities and health services. However, implementation and adoption were constrained by environmental shocks, weak infrastructure, limited resources, gender norms, and inconsistent incentives for community volunteers. Sustainability of gains was strongest where community ownership, institutional capacity, and integration into district systems were present.
conclusionThe UCC programme demonstrates that integrated, community-led, and multisectoral approaches can improve nutrition and health-related behaviours in rural settings. However, sustaining and scaling such gains requires stronger institutional integration, continued capacity strengthening, adaptive implementation strategies, and inclusive engagement of marginalized groups, particularly men and vulnerable households.
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.