↓ 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 (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 191 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 18%
Unspecified 23 12%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 57 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 13%
Social Sciences 24 13%
Unspecified 23 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 5%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 63 33%
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 06 November 2017.
All research outputs
#5,795,927
of 23,674,309 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,699
of 15,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,604
of 393,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#87
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,674,309 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 15,368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. 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 393,908 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 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 65% of its contemporaries.