Integrating Agriculture and Health Research for Development: LCIRAH as an Interdisciplinary Programme to Address a Global Challenge

Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Environment, Economy, Society, and Policy

Agri-food systems (AFS) have been central in the debate on sustainable development. Despite this growing interest in AFS, comprehensive analyses of the scholarly literature are hard to find. Therefore, the present systematic review delineated the contours of this growing research strand and analyzed how it relates to sustainability. A search performed on the Web of Science in January 2020 yielded 1389 documents, and 1289 were selected and underwent bibliometric and topical analyses. The topical analysis was informed by the SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems) approach of FAO and structured along four dimensions viz. environment, economy, society and culture, and policy and governance. The review shows an increasing interest in AFS with an exponential increase in publications number. However, the study field is north-biased and dominated by researchers and organizations from developed countries. Moreover, the analysis suggests that while environmental aspects are sufficiently addressed, social, economic, and political ones are generally overlooked. The paper ends by providing directions for future research and listing some topics to be integrated into a comprehensive, multidisciplinary agenda addressing the multifaceted (un)sustainability of AFS. It makes the case for adopting a holistic, 4-P (planet, people, profit, policy) approach in agri-food system studies.

A critical realist synthesis of cross-disciplinary health policy and systems research: defining characteristic features, developing an evaluation framework and identifying challenges

BACKGROUND

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is an inherently cross-disciplinary field of investigation. However, conflicting conceptualisations about inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary research have contributed to confusion about the characteristics of cross-disciplinary approaches in HPSR. This review was conducted to (1) define the characteristic features of context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations in cross-disciplinary HPSR, (2) develop criteria for evaluating cross-disciplinarity and (3) synthesise emerging challenges of the approach.

METHOD

The paper is a critical realist synthesis conducted in three phases, as follows: (1) scoping the literature, (2) searching for and screening the evidence, and (3) extracting and synthesising the evidence. Five databases, namely the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and Web of Science, PubMed central, Embase and CINHAL, and reference lists of studies that qualified for inclusion in the review were searched. The search covered peer-reviewed original research, reviews, commentary papers, and institutional or government reports published in English between January 1998 and January 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 7792 titles were identified in the online search and 137 publications, comprising pilot studies as well as anecdotal and empirical literature were selected for the final review. The review draws attention to the fact that cross-disciplinary HPSR is not defined by individual characteristics but by the combination of a particular type of research question and setting (context), a specific way of researchers working together (mechanism), and research output (outcome) that is superior to what could be achieved under a monodisciplinary approach. This CMO framework also informs the criteria for assessing whether a given HPSR is truly cross-disciplinary. The challenges of cross-disciplinary HPSR and their accompanying coping mechanisms were also found to be context driven, originating mainly from conceptual disagreements, institutional restrictions, communication and information management challenges, coordination problems, and resource limitations.

CONCLUSION

These findings have important implications. First, the CMO framework of cross-disciplinary HPSR can provide guidance for researchers engaging in new projects and for policy-makers using their findings. Second, the proposed criteria for evaluating theory and practice of cross-disciplinary HPSR may inform the systematic development of new research projects and the structured assessment of existing ones. Third, a better understanding of the challenges of cross-disciplinary HPSR and potential response mechanisms may help researchers to avoid these problems in the future.

Multisectoral community development in Nepal has greater effects on child growth and diet than nutrition education alone

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact on child diet and growth of a multisectoral community intervention v. nutrition education and livestock management training alone.

DESIGN

Longitudinal community-based randomized trial involving three groups of villages assigned to receive: (i) Full Package community development activities, delivered via women's groups; (ii) livestock training and nutrition education alone (Partial Package); or (iii) no intervention (Control). Household surveys, child growth monitoring, child and household diet quality measures (diet diversity (DD), animal-source food (ASF) consumption) were collected at five visits over 36 months. Mixed-effect linear regression and Poisson models used survey round, treatment group and group-by-round interaction to predict outcomes of interest, adjusted for household- and child-specific characteristics.

SETTING

Banke, Nepal.

PARTICIPANTS

Households (n 974) with children aged 1-60 months (n 1333).

RESULTS

Children in Full Package households had better endline anthropometry (weight-for-age, weight-for-height, mid-upper-arm-circumference Z-scores), DD, and more consumption of ASF, after adjusting for household- and child-specific characteristics. By endline, compared with Partial Package or Control groups, Full Package households demonstrated preferential child feeding practices and had significantly more improvement in household wealth and hygiene habits.

CONCLUSIONS

In this longitudinal study, a comprehensive multisectoral intervention was more successful in improving key growth indicators as well as diet quality in young children. Provision of training in livestock management and nutrition education alone had limited effect on these outcomes. Although more time-consuming and costly to administer, incorporating nutrition training with community social capital development was associated with better child growth and nutrition outcomes than isolated training programmes alone.