↓ Skip to main content

Upscaling Participatory Action and Videos for Agriculture and Nutrition (UPAVAN) trial comparing three variants of a nutrition-sensitive agricultural extension intervention to improve maternal and…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2018
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 (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
236 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
Upscaling Participatory Action and Videos for Agriculture and Nutrition (UPAVAN) trial comparing three variants of a nutrition-sensitive agricultural extension intervention to improve maternal and child nutritional outcomes in rural Odisha, India: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2521-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suneetha Kadiyala, Audrey Prost, Helen Harris-Fry, Meghan O’Hearn, Ronali Pradhan, Shibananth Pradhan, Naba Kishore Mishra, Suchitra Rath, Nirmala Nair, Shibanand Rath, Prasantha Tripathy, Sneha Krishnan, Peggy Koniz-Booher, Heather Danton, Diana Elbourne, Joanna Sturgess, Emma Beaumont, Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli, Jolene Skordis-Worrall, Satyanarayan Mohanty, Avinash Upadhay, Elizabeth Allen

Abstract

Maternal and child undernutrition have adverse consequences for pregnancy outcomes and child morbidity and mortality, and they are associated with low educational attainment, economic productivity as an adult, and human wellbeing. 'Nutrition-sensitive' agriculture programs could tackle the underlying causes of undernutrition. This study is a four-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in Odisha, India. Interventions are as follows: (1) an agricultural extension platform of women's groups viewing and discussing videos on nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA) practices, and follow-up visits to women at home to encourage the adoption of new practices shown in the videos; (2) women's groups viewing and discussing videos on NSA and nutrition-specific practices, with follow-up visits; and (3) women's groups viewing and discussing videos on NSA and nutrition-specific practices combined with a cycle of Participatory Learning and Action meetings, with follow-up visits. All arms, including the control, receive basic nutrition training from government community frontline workers. Primary outcomes, assessed at baseline and 32 months after the start of the interventions, are (1) percentage of children aged 6-23 months consuming ≥ 4 out of 7 food groups per day and (2) mean body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2) of non-pregnant, non-postpartum (gave birth > 42 days ago) mothers or female primary caregivers of children aged 0-23 months. Secondary outcomes are percentage of mothers consuming ≥ 5 out of 10 food groups per day and percentage of children's weight-for-height z-score < -2 standard deviations (SD). The unit of randomisation is a cluster, defined as one or more villages with a combined minimum population of 800 residents. There are 37 clusters per arm, and outcomes will be assessed in an average of 32 eligible households per cluster. For randomisation, clusters are stratified by distance to nearest town (< 10 km or ≥ 10 km), and low (< 30%), medium (30-70%), or high (> 70%) proportion of Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste (disadvantaged) households. A process evaluation will assess the quality of implementation and mechanisms behind the intervention effects. A cost-consequence analysis will compare incremental costs and outcomes of the interventions. This trial will contribute evidence on the impacts of NSA extension through participatory, low-cost, video-based approaches on maternal and child nutrition and on whether integration with nutrition-specific goals and enhanced participatory approaches can increase these impacts. ISRCTN , ISRCTN65922679 . Registered on 21 December 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 236 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 17%
Researcher 34 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 4%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 66 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 15%
Social Sciences 23 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Psychology 9 4%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 82 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 02 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,397,093
of 18,982,937 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#424
of 4,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,644
of 289,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,982,937 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 4,928 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 289,870 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them