Multisectoral nutrition planning: a post-mortem

Field, John Osgood

doi:10.1016/0306-9192(87)90044-3

Cited by 93 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, 'avoiding hunger is not a policy priority for rural people faced with famine' (ibid.). Others have similar findings, particularly in the context o f analysing the sequence o f coping or adaptive strategies people follow in times o f drought (Corbett 1988, Frankenberger and Goldstein 1990, Davies 1993.…”

Section: From a Food First Perspective To A Livelihood Perspectivementioning

confidence: 77%

“…While one school o f thought has focused on the household as the unit o f analysis for food security (Sahn 1989, Swift 1989, Eide 1990, Frankenberger and Goldstein 1990, Jonsson and Toole 1991, another has placed intra-household pow er and resource-allocation issues in the front line o f analysis and focused instead on individual food security (Reutlinger 1985, Gittinger et al 1990. The first school certainly recognises the importance o f intra-household issues: indeed, its concern is often specifically with m other and child health.…”

Section: From the Global And The National To The Household And The Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Food security: a post-modern perspective

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: From a Food First Perspective To A Livelihood Perspectivementioning

confidence: 77%

Section: From the Global And The National To The Household And The Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food security: a post-modern perspective

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…48 As SUN's global scope increases, so will demands for eff ective information and knowledge management. Presentation of results that correlate SUN activities with measurable reductions in nutrition indicators will become a key focus.…”

Section: Panel 4: Nutrition Post-2015mentioning

confidence: 99%

The politics of reducing malnutrition: building commitment and accelerating progress

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past 5 years, political discourse about the challenge of undernutrition has increased substantially at national and international levels and has led to stated commitments from many national governments, international organisations, and donors. The Scaling Up Nutrition movement has both driven, and been driven by, this developing momentum. Harmonisation has increased among stakeholders, with regard to their understanding of the main causes of malnutrition and to the various options for addressing it. The main challenges are to enhance and expand the quality and coverage of nutrition-specifi c interventions, and to maximise the nutrition sensitivity of more distal interventions, such as agriculture, social protection, and water and sanitation. But a crucial third level of action exists, which relates to the environments and processes that underpin and shape political and policy processes. We focus on this neglected level. We address several fundamental questions: how can enabling environments and processes be cultivated, sustained, and ultimately translated into results on the ground? How has high-level political momentum been generated? What needs to happen to turn this momentum into results? How can we ensure that high-quality, well-resourced interventions for nutrition are available to those who need them, and that agriculture, social protection, and water and sanitation systems and programmes are proactively reoriented to support nutrition goals? We use a six-cell framework to discuss the ways in which three domains (knowledge and evidence, politics and governance, and capacity and resources) are pivotal to create and sustain political momentum, and to translate momentum into results in high-burden countries.

show abstract

“…Inevitably this will require supporting the Ministries of Health in asserting their authority and coordinating the fragmented efforts that have long dominated the health sector and nutrition initiatives [30]. This case, and a decade of similar efforts in the 1970s that failed to create integrated nutrition actions in Latin America [31,32], suggest that the "evidence" foundation upon which many nutrition agendas are being promoted [4]-emphasizing what should be adopted based on the evidence from high-quality implementation in efficacy trials-leaves wanting questions regarding the messiness of real decision-making processes. As we learned here, breakdowns in communication about even simple decisions can ultimately undermine, delay, or unnecessarily complicate the ability of nutrition communities to work together, even when they agree on the broad goal of prioritizing malnutrition reduction and using evidence-based interventions.…”

Section: Broader Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%