Compelling, credible, recent, direct impact data
As of March 15 2025, The Communication Initiative (The CI) platform is operating at a reduced level, with no new content being posted to the global website and registration/login functions disabled. (La Iniciativa de Comunicación, or CILA, will keep running.) While many interactive functions are no longer available, The CI platform remains open for public use, with all content accessible and searchable until the end of 2025. 

Please note that some links within our knowledge summaries may be broken due to changes in external websites. The denial of access to the USAID website has, for instance, left many links broken. We can only hope that these valuable resources will be made available again soon. In the meantime, our summaries may help you by gleaning key insights from those resources. 

A heartfelt thank you to our network for your support and the invaluable work you do.
Time to read
1 minute
Read so far

Assessing impact and impact pathways of a homestead food production program on household and child nutrition in Cambodia

0 comments

Olney, D. K., A. Talukder, et al. (2009). "Assessing impact and impact pathways of a homestead food production program on household and child nutrition in Cambodia." Food and Nutrition Bulletin 30(4): 355-369.

Background. Homestead food production programs have the potential to improve maternal and child health and nutrition through multiple pathways.

Objective. To evaluate the impact of a homestead food production program in Cambodia on household production and consumption of micronutrient-rich foods and on maternal and child health and nutrition (intake of micronutrient-rich foods, anthropometry, hemoglobin, and anemia prevalence); and to assess pathways of impact on maternal and child health and nutrition.

Methods. Two cross-sectional surveys (baseline and endline) were used to assess differences between intervention (n = 300) and control (n = 200) households using t-tests and chi-square tests. Using endline data and multivariate analyses, we examined the pathways of impact of the program on maternal and child health and nutrition.

Results. Intervention and control households were similar at baseline in sociodemographic characteristics, but more intervention households owned animals, earned income from homestead food production, and produced and consumed micronutrient-rich foods. At endline, some of these differences had widened; more intervention households produced and consumed more vegetables, had higher dietary diversity, and had a lower prevalence of fever among children under 5 years of age. In the intervention group, more children consumed more eggs and more mothers consumed micronutrient-rich food more frequently than in the control group. There were no other differences between the groups in maternal and child health and nutrition. Greater household production of fruits and vegetables was associated with greater household dietary diversity, which was associated with dietary diversity among mothers and children. Dietary diversity was not associated with other maternal and child health and nutrition outcomes.

Conclusions. Cambodia's homestead food production program increased household production and consumption of micronutrient-rich foods and maternal and child intake (or frequency of intake) of some of these foods. Weaknesses in the evaluation design (e.g., lack of comparability between groups at baseline, failure to control for self-selection of households into the intervention, and collection of baseline and endline data during different seasons) prevent drawing firm conclusions about the program impacts. Analysis of impact pathways also shows that household-level benefits from the program did not translate into significant improvements in maternal and child health and nutrition. A careful redesign and rigorous assessment of the program using a program theory framework would help unleash its true potential to improve maternal and child health and nutrition outcomes.

Why the focus on direct impact data?

A common challenge from policy makers, funders, community members, people directly experiencing development issues, and governments is: Demonstrate your Impact. Prove that what you are doing works. The high quality, highly credible data presented on the cards below is designed to help you answer that question for your social change, behaviour change, community engagement, communication and media for development, strategy formulation, policy engagement and funding initiatives. At this link filter the research data to your specific interests and priorities

Why a playing cards design?

There is a physical pack of cards with this data (to get a copy please request through the comment form for any card). The card approach allows for easy identification and selection of relevant direct impact data in any context. For example if talking with a donor and you need to identify proof of impact say "take a look at the 7 of Hearts". Quick access can be provided to high-quality data for many areas of your work – funding, planning, policy, advocacy, community dialogue, training, partner engagement, and more. A card deck is also engaging, easy to use and share, a conversation starter, and a resource - and they are fun and different. So we kept that design for the online images as it can serve similar purposes. 

What are the criteria for inclusion?

The impact data presented meets the following high standard for inclusion criteria:

  • Positive change or trend in a priority development issue;
  • Social change or behaviour change strategy or process;
  • Randomized Control Trial or Systematic Review methodology;
  • High quality peer review journal published;
  • Numeric impact data point
  • Published since 2010.