| Literature DB >> 35432951 |
Dai Dinh Nguyen1,2, Sabina Di Prima1, Reint Huijzendveld3, E Pamela Wright4, Dirk Essink1, Jacqueline E W Broerse1.
Abstract
Background: Research on nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA) has mostly been aimed at demonstrating its impact on nutrition and explicating underlying pathways, and more rarely at understanding processes and lessons learnt from them. This study aimed to gain insights into the processes that influence behaviour change, contributing to improved caring, feeding and food production practices, using a program theory perspective. It also investigated perceived challenges to the sustainability of interventions and potential solutions, in the context of an NSA program in rural Vietnam. Using a participatory approach, data were gathered on impact pathways and perceived outcomes, on elements of program theory that led to behavioural change, as well as barriers and facilitators. Respondents in semi-structured interviews (n = 30) and seven focus group discussions (total n = 76) were selected purposively among program participants. Data was collected and triangulated across several stakeholder groups.Entities:
Keywords: Behaviour change; Ethnic minority groups; Impact pathways; Nutrition-sensitive agriculture; Process assessment; Remote areas
Year: 2022 PMID: 35432951 PMCID: PMC8995131 DOI: 10.1186/s40066-021-00350-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Agric Food Secur ISSN: 2048-7010
Fig. 1Ex-ante program theory of change
Overview of respondents and data collection tools
| Level | Respondents | SSIs | FGDs | FGD participants |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implementing NGO | Chief of office/lead implementer | 1 | – | – |
| District | Lead implementers from agriculture, health and education departments | 3 | 1 | 7 |
| Commune | Principal of Phu Mo nursery schools, health station representative, agriculture extension staff | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Village | Village health workers (VHWs) | 5 | – | – |
| Nursery school teachers | 5 | – | – | |
| Micro-entrepreneurs | 4 | – | – | |
| Parents/farmers (across the five villages) | 9 | 5 | 64 | |
| Total | ||||
Socio-demographic information on village level respondents
| Respondent groups | Socio-demographic information |
|---|---|
| Village health workers (VHWs) | ● VHWs are local persons selected by the villagers and trained by the health sector ● All five VHWs of Phu Mo commune (3 males; 2 females) participated in the study ● Respondents’ average age was 32 years (range: 27 to 47) ● They had high school education (grade 10 to 12, 16 to 18 years old) and a nine-month training as VHW ● VHWs have no salary. They receive a monthly working allowance from the government (USD 6.6); VHWs also have a livelihood as farmers |
| Nursery school teachers | ● Teachers are fulltime staff contracted by the district education department ● All five teachers of the Commune (5 female) participated in the study ● Respondents’ average age was 40 years (range: 35 to 52) ● They had high school education (grade 10 to 12, 16 to 18 years old) and a three-year training to become preschool teachers ● Average income was USD 264/person/month |
| Micro-entrepreneurs | ● Micro-entrepreneurs are female villagers with small local businesses ● All four micro-entrepreneurs in the project participated in the study ● Respondents’ average age was 46 years (range: 35 to 56) ● They had high school education (grade 10 to 12, 16 to 18 years old) ● Average income was USD 287/person/month |
| Parents | ● Data below refers to the 64 parents who participated in the five FGDs ● 100% of the participants were female ● Respondents’ average age was 28 years (range: 20 to 36) ● 73% had secondary school education (grade 6 to 9, 12 to 15 years old), 22% high school (grade 10 to 12, 16 to 18 years old) and 5% primary school (grade 1 to 5, 6 to 11 years old) or lower ● 50% of the respondents were poor (below USD 31/person/month), 28% were relatively poor (below USD 44/person/month) and 22% had an income above USD 44/person/month |
Perceptions about change among different stakeholders
| Stakeholder group | District authorities | Commune authorities | Village health workers | Nursery school teachers | Micro-entrepreneurs | Parents/ farmers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Production–consumption pathway | ● Multi-stakeholder interventions led to farmers’ behaviour changes; ● Role models and influential community members enhanced confidence; ● Partial shift from cash crops to non-cash nutritious crops; ● Increased diversity of nutritious crop production; ● At least 15% of farmers have surplus nutritious food to sell to communities and micro-entrepreneurs; ● Vulnerable households still focus on labour and cash crops for income. | ● Partial shift from cash crops to non-cash nutritious crops; ● Increased diversity of nutritious crop production; ● Nutritious food integrated in household diets; ● Shift from buying food with wages to producing own food and selling surplus; ● Vulnerable households still focus on labour and cash crops for income. | ● Increased food diversity (production and diet) and NSA practices; ● More nutritious daily food intake for children and pregnant women; ● Farmers will continue growing nutritious crops after project ends. | ● Farmers produce more nutritious food for daily intake; ● Farmers sell surplus food to micro-entrepreneurs and communities. | ● Increased food diversity (production and diet) and NSA practices; ● Farmers will continue growing nutritious crops, seeing good results; ● More confident and knowledgeable in implementing new NSA models; ● Vulnerable households still focus on labour and cash crops for income. | |
| Caring–feeding pathway | ● Intersectoral interventions supported at least half of families to change behaviour in caring and feeding for children and pregnant women: seeking health care, hygiene, breastfeeding, and vaccination; ● Household groups an essential channel for health and nutrition education and behaviour change. | ● At least half of families already changed behaviour in feeding and caring for children and pregnant women; ● Peer-to-peer exchanges crucial for knowledge sharing and behaviour change; ● Families applied new knowledge on nutrition, nutritious crops and school feeding. | ● Village health workers gained knowledge on NSA; ● Improved caring and feeding behaviour for children and pregnant women; ● Household groups meetings enhanced social capital. | ● Better home cooking practices learnt from the school feeding program; ● Parents spend more money on food for children; ● Parents working away unable to take good care of children. | ● Better home cooking practices learnt from micro-entrepreneurs; ● Parents pay more attention to nutrition, feeding their children, and school meals. Some bought food from micro-entrepreneurs for children not at school; ● Micro-entrepreneurs and parents communicate about school meals and food intake. | ● More exchange on NSA knowledge and practices among community members and households lead to behaviour change; ● Parents increased knowledge on nutrition and health care. They will continue new behaviours after project ends; ● More social exchange in community; ● Parents working away unable to take good care of children. |
| HGSF pathway | ● Education sector needs multi-stakeholder collaboration to implement school feeding program; ● At least 15% of households sell surplus agricultural products to micro-entrepreneurs for school meals; ● Reduced undernutrition among nursery school children; ● School meals contributed to increased nursery school attendance; ● Children requested same meals at home; ● District Education Committee will continue school meals when program support ends. | ● Selection of committed/active micro-entrepreneurs; ● Increased use of home-grown foods in school meals; ● Parents and teachers communicate about school meals and nutrition education; ● Reduced undernutrition among nursery school children; ● School meals contributed to increased nursery school attendance; ● Most parents willing to pay for school meals when program support ends but some are unable to pay. | ● Parents pay more attention to nutritious breakfasts for nursery school and younger children; ● Parents bring children to school more regularly and on time; ● School feeding contributed to behaviour change in feeding and caring for children and pregnant women; ● Most parents willing to pay for school meals when project ends but vulnerable households cannot. | ● Teachers, parents and micro-entrepreneurs communicate more about nutrition and school meals; ● Reduced undernutrition among nursery school children; ● School meals contributed to increased attendance at nursery schools; ● Children changed hygiene habits and food preferences; ● Increased use of home-grown foods in school meals; ● Micro-entrepreneurs provide alternative payment plans for families that cannot pay on time. | ● Local food sources are used for school meals, including micro-entrepreneurs’ own products; ● Children like school meals and look healthy; ● Positive effects of school meals motivate micro-entrepreneurs to maintain good quality; ● Increased trust in the capacity of micro-entrepreneurs; ● Most parents willing to pay for school meals after project ends but some are unable to pay; ● Micro-entrepreneurs provide alternative payment plans for families that cannot pay on time. | ● Micro-entrepreneurs and parents communicate about cooking and intake of nutritious foods; ● Children love school meals and expect the same food at home; Reduced undernutrition among nursery school children; ● All want to sustain the school feeding program but vulnerable households are unable to pay the full cost. |
Overview of facilitators and barriers per pathway
| Production–consumption | Caring and feeding | HGSF | |
|---|---|---|---|
● Households with successful experiences acquired a role model status within their communities; ● Exposure to such positive experiences and their visible benefits gave other beneficiaries the confidence and motivation to implement improved agricultural systems; ● Increased confidence and pride in their achievements were important elements in the successful program implementation. Micro-entrepreneur (R17): MCNV office chief (R30): Commune agriculture (R5): | ● Household group leaders became role models for other parents especially for mothers. They transferred the new knowledge and skills acquired by training, infusing confidence on the results of the improved practices. VHW (R11): District health (R1): District education (R2): | ● Parents whose children had visible improvement in nutritional status, became role models, sharing their successful experience with others at school and HGMs; ● Exposure to positive examples and their results enhanced confidence and motivated other beneficiaries to replicate good practices. Commune nursery school principal (R4): ● Both nursery school children and micro-entrepreneurs were perceived as agents of change; ● Children’s appreciation of the school meals and their request to eat the same food at home induced changes in parents’ cooking and feeding practices; ● Micro-entrepreneurs engaged with the community not only by supplying school meals but also by selling food and demonstrating recipes to community members; ● Multiple interviewees confirmed that the micro-enterprises also provided benefits to children not registered at nursery schools. VHW (R9): “For mothers of children not yet attending preschool, for both well- and malnourished children, mothers buy nutritional porridge for breakfast.” | |
● Poor households lacked time to implement the agricultural models. Their need for waged labour far from home was noted as a main constraint; ● Furthermore, economic conditions affected the extent and quality of implementation. Commune agriculture (R5): “ District agriculture (R3): ● Despite having acquired sufficient skills, a large number of beneficiaries were unable to sustain their vegetable production during the dry season due to lack of water; ● The change of agricultural practices was also constrained by the lack of land, which limited the scale of production; ● Farmers recognised a lack of drought-resistant crops, such as pumpkin, bitter gourd and papaya. Phu Giang Village FGD (G3): ● Beneficiaries received chickens to produce eggs but faced several challenges, including animal diseases; ● Building on the lessons learnt from implementation, the NSA program trained beneficiaries on techniques, such as corralling and vaccinations, to minimize the spread of diseases. The applied strategies were not successful enough; ● Early on, shortages of animal feed were perceived as a barrier. After the introduction of alternative feeding systems with crickets and earthworms, that barrier was overcome. District agriculture (R3): | ● Barriers to change were found among the most disadvantaged households, which tend to have more children but less time for their care; ● Management of their limited financial resources constrained their ability to change; ● Some families find caretakers for their children but inadequate caring and feeding practices may not change if those caretakers are not involved in the learning activities. VHW (R11): ● In spite of the positive attributes of HGMs, participants’ priorities and/or lack of time proved to be a constraint; ● Lower engagement was partly attributed to communication materials being insufficiently tailored to the illiterate participants, hampering uptake of complex messages, such as vaccination and seasonal diseases. VHW (R28): | ● The school meal subsidy provided by the NSA program was crucial at the beginning, as it encouraged community buy-in. However, as the program progressed, the costs raised issues regarding sustainability; ● Limited financial capacity to contribute became a significant constraining factor especially for the poorest households, in spite of their willingness to continue. Village teacher (R8): Micro-entrepreneur (R14): Parent/farmer (R12): |