↓ Skip to main content

Understanding the role of intersectoral convergence in the delivery of essential maternal and child nutrition interventions in Odisha, India: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 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
Understanding the role of intersectoral convergence in the delivery of essential maternal and child nutrition interventions in Odisha, India: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4088-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sunny S. Kim, Rasmi Avula, Rajani Ved, Neha Kohli, Kavita Singh, Mara van den Bold, Suneetha Kadiyala, Purnima Menon

Abstract

Convergence of sectoral programs is important for scaling up essential maternal and child health and nutrition interventions. In India, these interventions are implemented by two government programs - Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) and National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). These programs are designed to work together, but there is limited understanding of the nature and extent of coordination in place and needed at the various administrative levels. Our study examined how intersectoral convergence in nutrition programming is operationalized between ICDS and NRHM from the state to village levels in Odisha, and the factors influencing convergence in policy implementation and service delivery. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with state-level stakeholders (n = 12), district (n = 19) and block officials (n = 66), and frontline workers (FLWs, n = 48). Systematic coding and content analysis of transcripts were undertaken to elucidate themes and patterns related to the degree and mechanisms of convergence, types of actions/services, and facilitators and barriers. Close collaboration at state level was observed in developing guidelines, planning, and reviewing programs, facilitated by a shared motivation and recognized leadership for coordination. However, the health department was perceived to drive the agenda, and different priorities and little data sharing presented challenges. At the district level, there were joint planning and review meetings, trainings, and data sharing, but poor participation in the intersectoral meetings and limited supervision. While the block level is the hub for planning and supervision, cooperation is limited by the lack of guidelines for coordination, heavy workload, inadequate resources, and poor communication. Strong collaboration among FLWs was facilitated by close interpersonal communication and mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities. Congruent or shared priorities and regularity of actions between sectors across all levels will likely improve the quality of coordination, and clear roles and leadership and accountability are imperative. As convergence is a means to achieving effective coverage and delivery of services for improved maternal and child health and nutrition, focus should be on delivering all the essential services to the mother-child dyads through mechanisms that facilitate a continuum of care approach, rather than sectorally-driven, service-specific delivery processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 247 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 51 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 13%
Student > Master 33 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Student > Bachelor 9 4%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 77 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 38 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 4%
Psychology 8 3%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 91 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,202,675
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,563
of 14,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,262
of 420,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#113
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 420,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.