↓ Skip to main content

Use of a Nutrition Behavior Change Counseling Tool: Lessons from a Rapid Qualitative Assessment in Eastern Zambia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of a Nutrition Behavior Change Counseling Tool: Lessons from a Rapid Qualitative Assessment in Eastern Zambia
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00179
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingrid Weiss, Serena Stepanovic, Ulembe Chinyemba, Jessica Bateman, Carolyn Hemminger, Emily Burrows

Abstract

The U.S. Agency for International Development Feed the Future Mawa Project - led by Catholic Relief Services - aims to improve food and economic security for farming households in Zambia's Eastern Province. Mawa employs social and behavior change (SBC) strategies with households and communities to improve nutrition and reduce stunting among children under two (CU2). To support these strategies, sub-partner University Research Co., LLC employed a participatory process to develop a series of 35 action cards, each illustrating one project-promoted behavior, that are used at household and community group levels. Caregivers of CU2 are given a full set of action cards to promote household dialogue and support for the promoted behaviors. As a final step in the action card tool development process, a qualitative rapid assessment was conducted 1 month after implementation to investigate preliminary ways action cards were being used, and if the methods of using the cards had the potential to impact behavior change. The research team conducted nine key informant interviews and four focus group discussions with Mawa staff and administered 41 qualitative interview questionnaires with project participants in the Chipata and Lundazi districts. Although not based on a representative sampling frame, the assessment produced valuable results for program improvement purposes. It also provided a feedback mechanism for community-based staff and project participants, a crucial step in the participatory tool development process. The assessment found that Mawa staff at every level use action cards combined with at least one other social behavior change tool for each nutrition intervention. Our results suggest that Mawa staff and project participants share a common understanding of the cards' purpose. Each group noted that the cards provide a visual cue for action and reinforce previous Mawa nutrition messages. Intended uses confirmed by the assessment include encouraging household cooperation, negotiating behavior change, telling stories, and integrating messages with other project sectors. Based on the findings, recommendations for future project activities include aligning efforts against a theory of change to optimize use of all SBC tools; leveraging action card use to strengthen cross-sectoral integration within Mawa; and specific ongoing monitoring of action card use to improve activity implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 24%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 21%
Social Sciences 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 20 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,338,537
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#7,583
of 10,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,482
of 337,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#78
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.