Aflatoxins Toxicity, Nutrition Poor, Water-Related Diseases
Conditions
Keywords
SBCC, child wasting, aflatoxin, coliform, Uganda
Brief summary
This study asks the research question Does enabling families (particularly mothers and other caregivers) to 'assess and act' on drivers of malnutrition through a targeted SBC+ package succeed in a sustained reduction of risk factors thereby improving child health and nutrition? This study aims to implement and measure the effects of a multi-level multi-sectoral behavior change information intervention in Agago District of Northern Uganda and determine potential for scale up in a complex environment. The study design is a three-arm cluster randomized controlled superiority design (cRCT) with a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. The study arms will be: Group 1: NIPP arm; Group 2: NIPP+ arm; and Group 3: Non-intervention control arm. A barrier analysis will be conducted to ensure appropriate targeting and contextualization of the NIPP and NIPP+ approaches prior to implementation. Each intervention arm will receive a 12-week intervention (NIPP or NIPP+) with active monitoring and longitudinal follow ups post intervention at 2, 6, and 12-months post-intervention. The total sample size for the Barrier Analysis will be a maximum of 450 caregivers; for the main intervention, 900 households (300/arm) will be purposely sampled from the randomly selected communities. Respondents for the qualitative portion will be purposely selected.
Detailed description
Objective: This study asks the research question Does enabling families (particularly mothers and other caregivers) to 'assess and act' on drivers of malnutrition through a targeted SBC+ package succeed in a sustained reduction of risk factors thereby improving child health and nutrition? This study aims to implement and measure the effects of a multi-level multi-sectoral behavior change information intervention in Agago District of Northern Uganda and determine potential for scale up in a complex environment. Intervention: Through a collaboration between Tufts University, GOAL International, CIMMYT, and Cornell University, GOAL will implement Nutrition Impact and Positive Practice (NIPP) circles as the standard SBC intervention against which the hypotheses will be tested. GOAL will also implement a NIPP+ approach which will integrate additional interventions for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), and use of improved agriculture inputs. These interventions will be measured by outcome indicators measuring aflatoxin exposure, water contamination, and knowledge transferred to action. Design: The study design is a three-arm cluster randomized controlled superiority design (cRCT) with a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. The study arms will be: Group 1: NIPP arm; Group 2: NIPP+ arm; and Group 3: Non-intervention control arm. A barrier analysis will be conducted to ensure appropriate targeting and contextualization of the NIPP and NIPP+ approaches prior to implementation. Each intervention arm will receive a 12-week intervention (NIPP or NIPP+) with active monitoring and longitudinal follow ups post intervention at 2, 6, and 12-months post-intervention. The total sample size for the Barrier Analysis will be a maximum of 450 caregivers; for the main intervention, 900 households (300/arm) will be purposely sampled from the randomly selected communities. Respondents for the qualitative portion will be purposely selected. Analysis: This longitudinal study will collect data from all participants at 3 time points: baseline, endline, and sustainability (12-months post-intervention). The analysis will utilize Intent-to-Treat (ITT) approach using the initial randomization of the treatment arms. Using ITT will allow us to determine the overall impact of having the NIPP vs. NIPP+ vs. control, thus better mimicking real world program implementation and impact. Mixed effects models will be used to determine the role of time-variant and invariant individual (by gender) household, and community characteristics, as well as measures of exposure and integration on key outcome indicators. A difference-in-difference analysis (baseline/endline, baseline/sustainability, endline/sustainability) will also be used to triangulate findings. Sub-study: a subset of reproductive age women will be purposively selected for enrollment into a validation sub-study that will examine the level of aflatoxin (AFB1-lysine concentration) exposure measured in venous blood compared to capillary blood compared to the innovative SAFE-phone method. This will serve as a validation and calibration sub-study to gauge the accuracy of the SAFE-Phone method compared to venous reference.
Interventions
GOAL's NIPP approach is a gendered, grass-roots SBC approach, tackling a package of underlying behavioral determinants of malnutrition, irrespective of the particular manifestation. The approach is multi-sectoral in nature. It also has a strong monitoring, evaluation and adaptive learning component by design. The intervention approach (based on GOAL's NIPP approach) involves the creation of community, male and female circles in each community with messaging and activities targeted towards the three groups in varying intensities. While the male and female circles meet 2-3 times per week for a maximum period of 12 weeks while the community circles will meet for approximately three hours at any one time over a period of 2-7 days. (See GOAL NIPP Implementation Guidelines)
Sponsors
Study design
Intervention model description
The study design is a three-arm cluster randomized controlled superiority design (cRCT) with a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. The study arms will be: Group 1: NIPP arm; Group 2: NIPP+ arm; and Group 3: Non-intervention control arm. for the venous aflatoxin sub-study, 36 women will be purposively selected from the eligible communities.
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria: * Female circle: * Willingness to participate in the group * staying in the area for 12 weeks. * Have a child under the age of 2 (irrespective of status of malnutrition) * Male circle inclusion * Willingness to participate * staying the area for 12 weeks * Spouse, brothers and/or other influential male family members of the female caregiver enrolled in the female circle * Community circle - No specific criteria other than being key community leaders
Exclusion criteria
Individuals in households without eligible children (i.e. without a child under age 2), or who will not be present in the selected communities during the intervention and data collection periods and/or who are not willing to participate through the entire 12-week cycle.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Aflatoxin Exposure in Maize | within 1-month of harvest immediately after the intervention and one year after the intervention. | aflatoxin in parts per billion in a random sample of maize in a given household's maize supply |
| Change in E. coli exposure in household | prior to the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 1 year following the intervention | e. coli measured in colonies/100 ml |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Aflatoxin Exposure in blood serum | immediately after the intervention, and 1 year following the intervention | venous total (ng/ml) AFB1-lysine adduct concentrations |
| Change in Dietary Diversity - mother and child | prior to the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 1 year following the intervention and 2 and 6-months after the intervention | 24 hours recall applied to standard dietary diversity range |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Mid-upper Arm Circumference | prior to the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 1 year following the intervention | cm of mid upper arm circumference taken with standard UNICEF tape |
| Change in Food Insecurity | prior to the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 1 year following the intervention | Household food insecurity and access score (0-27, 72=highly insecure) |
| Change in weight-for-height z score | prior to the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 1 year following the intervention | weight taken with SECA scale and height taken with standard height board applied to WHO growth charts |
| Maize production | just before exposure to the training and 1 year after training | acreage planted |
Countries
Uganda