↓ Skip to main content

The REFANI-S study protocol: a non-randomised cluster controlled trial to assess the role of an unconditional cash transfer, a non-food item kit, and free piped water in reducing the risk of acute…

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
270 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
The REFANI-S study protocol: a non-randomised cluster controlled trial to assess the role of an unconditional cash transfer, a non-food item kit, and free piped water in reducing the risk of acute malnutrition among children aged 6–59 months living in camps for internally displaced persons in the Afgooye corridor, Somalia
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4550-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed Jelle, Carlos S. Grijalva-Eternod, Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli, Sarah King, Cassy L. Cox, Jolene Skordis-Worrall, Joanna Morrison, Timothy Colbourn, Edward Fottrell, Andrew J. Seal

Abstract

The prevalence of acute malnutrition is often high in emergency-affected populations and is associated with elevated mortality risk and long-term health consequences. Increasingly, cash transfer programmes (CTP) are used instead of direct food aid as a nutritional intervention, but there is sparse evidence on their nutritional impact. We aim to understand whether CTP reduces acute malnutrition and its known risk factors. A non-randomised, cluster-controlled trial will assess the impact of an unconditional cash transfer of US$84 per month for 5 months, a single non-food items kit, and free piped water on the risk of acute malnutrition in children, aged 6-59 months. The study will take place in camps for internally displaced persons (IDP) in peri-urban Mogadishu, Somalia. A cluster will consist of one IDP camp and 10 camps will be allocated to receive the intervention based on vulnerability targeting criteria. The control camps will then be selected from the same geographical area. Needs assessment data indicates small differences in vulnerability between camps. In each trial arm, 120 households will be randomly sampled and two detailed household surveys will be implemented at baseline and 3 months after the initiation of the cash transfer. The survey questionnaire will cover risk factors for malnutrition including household expenditure, assets, food security, diet diversity, coping strategies, morbidity, WASH, and access to health care. A community surveillance system will collect monthly mid-upper arm circumference measurements from all children aged 6-59 months in the study clusters to assess the incidence of acute malnutrition over the duration of the intervention. Process evaluation data will be compiled from routine quantitative programme data and primary qualitative data collected using key informant interviews and focus group discussions. The UK Department for International Development will provide funding for this study. The European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations will fund the intervention. Concern Worldwide will implement the intervention as part of their humanitarian programming. This non-randomised cluster controlled trial will provide needed evidence on the role of unconditional CTP in reducing the risk of acute malnutrition among IDP in this context. ISRCTN29521514 . Registered 19 January 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 270 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 270 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 18%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 10%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 96 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 16%
Social Sciences 23 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 3%
Other 30 11%
Unknown 110 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 10 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,929,019
of 25,480,126 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,267
of 17,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,372
of 326,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#50
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,480,126 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 326,250 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.