| Literature DB >> 35573468 |
Rama Narayanan1, Akshaya Kumar Panda2, D J Nithya2, R V Bhavani3.
Abstract
Background: An ongoing action research nutrition literacy programme based on Freire's approach of raising critical consciousness through the use of dialogue as a pedagogic tool is being implemented as part of a nutrition sensitive agricultural intervention in tribal Odisha. One hundred and eight adults, referred to as Community Hunger Fighters (CHFs) underwent two modules of a residential training programme of two and a half days each, spread over two months. Through discussion they explored the reasons behind the lack of diversity in their daily diets and identified the social, economic and cultural barriers to food intake in the context of their own poverty. They undertook collective exercises in nutrition sensitive agricultural planning. The transformative behaviour of the CHFs was captured through observation, interviews and focus group discussion with a set of qualitative indicators.Entities:
Keywords: Behaviour change; Dialogue; Nutrition literacy; Nutrition sensitive agriculture
Year: 2022 PMID: 35573468 PMCID: PMC9088138 DOI: 10.1186/s43170-022-00090-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: CABI Agric Biosci ISSN: 2662-4044
Fig. 1Map showing the study location
Fig. 2Steps in implementing nutrition literacy
Training content and methodologies
| Content | Strategies for critical reflection |
|---|---|
| Understanding one’s own nutritional status | Nutritional assessment of participants and discussion on the results |
| Examining household diet | Small group discussion on lifestyle, daily diet and sources of food followed by presentations. Use of picture booklet as discussion starter to understand nutritive value of foods |
| Choice of crops and agricultural planning | Agricultural planning in small groups balancing nutritional and economic requirements in a given type of landa (1 acre). The plans are discussed by all groups |
| Role of class, caste and gender in accessing food | Participants are randomly divided into three groups and given a situation with which to enact a role play. This is followed by a discussion and reflection on existing socio economic and cultural practices that hinder access to food by specific population groups |
| Estimating annual household food requirement | Participants discuss in randomly divided groups if their annual food requirement could be met with a given type of land and other strategies for augmenting food production |
| Introduction to Government entitlements | Face to face interaction with officials from Government departments |
| Identifying key messages | Village-wise group discussion |
aKoraput is a hilly region and has 3 types of land: upland, middle land and low land
Qualitative and quantitative indicators of behaviour change
| Parameters | Evidence of outcomes | Methods |
|---|---|---|
| CHF level | Examples of critical reflection Changes in attitudes and perceptions Sharing of information and networking with community Changes in dietary practices and food production strategies at household level | Continuous observation Interviews FGD |
| At the household level | Changes in food production at household level Uptake of techniques and technologies for improved food production Changes in dietary diversity and food consumption | Baseline and endline surveys |
| At the community level | Increased participation by marginalized groups in village level meetings Submission of claims for collective entitlements for hunger free villages | FGD with CHFs Interviews with village and community leaders, PRI members and Government functionaries |
Frequency of consumption and source of food (n = 315)
| Food item | Frequency of Consumption by households (%) | Source | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daily | 4 times a week | Twice or thrice a week | Once a week | Rarelya | ||
| Cereals | ||||||
| Rice | 100 | – | – | – | – | Own production, PDSb, market |
| Finger millet | 85 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 7 | Own production, market |
| Pulses | ||||||
| Lentil | – | 12 | 22 | 34 | 32 | Market |
| Horsegram | – | 2 | 8 | 26 | 64 | Market, own production |
| Green gram | – | 2 | 4 | 22 | 72 | Market |
| Leafy veg | ||||||
| Cabbage | – | 23 | 28 | 29 | 20 | Market |
| Amaranthus | – | 5 | 18 | 40 | 37 | Market |
| Onion stalk | – | 5 | 12 | 31 | 52 | Market |
| Radish leaves | – | 1 | 5 | 28 | 66 | Market |
| Roots tubers | ||||||
| Potato | 26 | 54 | 12 | 4 | 3 | Market |
| Onion | 70 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 14 | Market |
| Radish | – | 3 | 12 | 29 | 56 | Market |
| Other Veg | ||||||
| Tomato | 74 | 23 | 3 | – | – | Market |
| Brinjal | 2 | 33 | 23 | 24 | 19 | Market |
| Beans | – | 5 | 22 | 39 | 34 | Market |
| Broad bean | – | 14 | 13 | 37 | 35 | Predominantly home production |
| Papaya green | – | – | 2 | 25 | 72 | Predominantly home production |
| Fruits | ||||||
| Banana | – | 2 | 3 | 34 | 61 | Market |
| Fats and oil | ||||||
| Cooking oil | 57 | 33 | 6 | 3 | – | Market |
| Sugar | 70 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 16 | Market |
aEaten once or twice a month or never
bState run public distribution system providing subsidized grains
Source: Raju et al. (2020)
Profile of CHFs (n = 108)
| Gender | Caste | Literacy | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | ST | SC | OBC | Non literate | Primary | Middle school | Secondary school | Graduate |
| 59 (55%) | 49 (45%) | 84 (78%) | 16 (15%) | 8 (7%) | 58 (54%) | 19 (18%) | 7 (6%) | 22 (20%) | 2 (2%) |
Fig. 3Percentage of people contacted through formal and informal meetings
Fig. 4Dynamics of dialogue