↓ Skip to main content

The REFANI Pakistan study—a cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cash-based transfer programmes on child nutrition status: study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
333 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 Pakistan study—a cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cash-based transfer programmes on child nutrition status: study protocol
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2380-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bridget Fenn, Ghulam Murtaza Sangrasi, Chloe Puett, Lani Trenouth, Silke Pietzsch

Abstract

Cash-based transfer programmes are an emerging strategy in the prevention of wasting in children, especially targeted at vulnerable households during periods of food insecurity or during emergencies. However, the evidence surrounding the use of either cash or voucher transfer programmes in the humanitarian context and on nutritional outcomes is elusive. More evidence is needed not only to inform the global community of practice on best practices in humanitarian settings, but also to help strengthen national mitigation responses. The Research for Food Assistance on Nutrition Impact Pakistan study (REFANI-P) sets out to evaluate the impact of three cash-based interventions on nutritional outcomes in children aged less than five years from poor and very poor households in Dadu District. This four-arm parallel cluster randomised controlled trial is set among Action Against Hunger (ACF) programme villages in Dadu District, Sindh Province. Mothers are the target recipients of either seasonal unconditional cash transfers or fresh food vouchers. A comparison group receives 'standard care' provided by the ACF programme to which all groups have the same access. The primary outcomes are prevalence of wasting and mean weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) in children. Impact will be assessed at 6 months and at 1 year from baseline. Using a theory-based approach we will determine 'how' the different interventions work by looking at the processes involved and the impact pathways following the theory of change developed for this context. Quantitative and qualitative data are collected on morbidity, health seeking, hygiene and nutrition behaviours, dietary diversity, haemoglobin concentration, women's empowerment, household food security and expenditures and social capital. The direct and indirect costs of each intervention borne by the implementing organisation and their partners as well as by beneficiaries and their communities are also assessed. The results of this trial will provide robust evidence to help increase knowledge about the predictability of how different modalities of cash-based transfer work best to reduce the risk of child wasting during a season where food insecurity is at its highest. Evidence on costing and cost-effectiveness will further aid decisions on choice of modality in terms of effectiveness and sustainability. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10761532 . Registered 26 March 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 333 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 1 <1%
Unknown 332 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 73 22%
Researcher 40 12%
Student > Bachelor 34 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 5%
Other 53 16%
Unknown 84 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 15%
Social Sciences 47 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 21 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 5%
Other 46 14%
Unknown 98 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 June 2020.
All research outputs
#5,556,102
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,486
of 14,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,633
of 279,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#97
of 277 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 279,145 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 277 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.