↓ Skip to main content

Optima Nutrition: an allocative efficiency tool to reduce childhood stunting by better targeting of nutrition-related interventions

Overview of attention for book
Optima Nutrition: an allocative efficiency tool to reduce childhood stunting by better targeting of…
Overall attention for this book
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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Optima Nutrition: an allocative efficiency tool to reduce childhood stunting by better targeting of nutrition-related interventions
Published by
BMC Public Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5294-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Pearson, Madhura Killedar, Janka Petravic, Jakub J. Kakietek, Nick Scott, Kelsey L. Grantham, Robyn M. Stuart, David J. Kedziora, Cliff C. Kerr, Jolene Skordis-Worrall, Meera Shekar, David P. Wilson

Abstract

Child stunting due to chronic malnutrition is a major problem in low- and middle-income countries due, in part, to inadequate nutrition-related practices and insufficient access to services. Limited budgets for nutritional interventions mean that available resources must be targeted in the most cost-effective manner to have the greatest impact. Quantitative tools can help guide budget allocation decisions. The Optima approach is an established framework to conduct resource allocation optimization analyses. We applied this approach to develop a new tool, 'Optima Nutrition', for conducting allocative efficiency analyses that address childhood stunting. At the core of the Optima approach is an epidemiological model for assessing the burden of disease; we use an adapted version of the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Six nutritional interventions have been included in the first release of the tool: antenatal micronutrient supplementation, balanced energy-protein supplementation, exclusive breastfeeding promotion, promotion of improved infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices, public provision of complementary foods, and vitamin A supplementation. To demonstrate the use of this tool, we applied it to evaluate the optimal allocation of resources in 7 districts in Bangladesh, using both publicly available data (such as through DHS) and data from a complementary costing study. Optima Nutrition can be used to estimate how to target resources to improve nutrition outcomes. Specifically, for the Bangladesh example, despite only limited nutrition-related funding available (an estimated $0.75 per person in need per year), even without any extra resources, better targeting of investments in nutrition programming could increase the cumulative number of children living without stunting by 1.3 million (an extra 5%) by 2030 compared to the current resource allocation. To minimize stunting, priority interventions should include promotion of improved IYCF practices as well as vitamin A supplementation. Once these programs are adequately funded, the public provision of complementary foods should be funded as the next priority. Programmatic efforts should give greatest emphasis to the regions of Dhaka and Chittagong, which have the greatest number of stunted children. A resource optimization tool can provide important guidance for targeting nutrition investments to achieve greater impact.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Researcher 15 10%
Lecturer 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 8 5%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 46 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 38 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 17%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 5%
Engineering 6 4%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 48 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 01 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,597,185
of 19,539,469 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,767
of 12,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,573
of 293,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,539,469 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 293,381 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 86% 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