↓ Skip to main content

The REFANI-N study protocol: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early initiation and longer duration of emergency/seasonal unconditional cash…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 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 (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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-N study protocol: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early initiation and longer duration of emergency/seasonal unconditional cash transfers for the prevention of acute malnutrition among children, 6–59 months, in Tahoua, Niger
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2640-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria L. Sibson, Carlos S. Grijalva-Eternod, Leila Bourahla, Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli, Joanna Morrison, Chloe Puett, Lani Trenouth, Andrew Seal

Abstract

The global burden of acute malnutrition among children remains high, and prevalence rates are highest in humanitarian contexts such as Niger. Unconditional cash transfers are increasingly used to prevent acute malnutrition in emergencies but lack a strong evidence base. In Niger, non-governmental organisations give unconditional cash transfers to the poorest households from June to September; the 'hunger gap'. However, rising admissions to feeding programmes from March/April suggest the intervention may be late. This cluster-randomised controlled trial will compare two types of unconditional cash transfer for 'very poor' households in 'vulnerable' villages defined and identified by the implementing organisation. 3,500 children (6-59 months) and 2,500 women (15-49 years) will be recruited exhaustively from households targeted for cash and from a random sample of non-recipient households in 40 villages in Tahoua district. Clusters of villages with a common cash distribution point will be assigned to either a control group which will receive the standard intervention (n = 10), or a modified intervention group (n = 10). The standard intervention is 32,500 FCFA/month for 4 months, June to September, given cash-in-hand to female representatives of 'very poor' households. The modified intervention is 21,500 FCFA/month for 5 months, April, May, July, August, September, and 22,500 FCFA in June, providing the same total amount. In both arms the recipient women attend an education session, women and children are screened and referred for acute malnutrition treatment, and the households receive nutrition supplements for children 6-23 months and pregnant and lactating women. The trial will evaluate whether the modified unconditional cash transfer leads to a reduction in acute malnutrition among children 6-59 months old compared to the standard intervention. The sample size provides power to detect a 5 percentage point difference in prevalence of acute malnutrition between trial arms. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation data will be prospectively collected and programme costs will be collected and cost-effectiveness ratios calculated. This randomised study design with a concurrent process evaluation will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of earlier initiation of seasonal unconditional cash transfer for the prevention of acute malnutrition, which will be generalisable to similar humanitarian situations. ISRCTN25360839 , registered March 19, 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 22%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 35 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 18%
Social Sciences 22 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 6%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 40 31%

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 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,487,830
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,916
of 11,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,650
of 374,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#368
of 1,127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 374,825 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,127 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 67% of its contemporaries.