Compelling, credible, recent, direct impact data
Time to read
1 minute
Read so far

SBC Communication - 14% Difference in Prevalence of Stunting

Strategy researched
Unconditional cash transfer (UCT), lipid-based nutrient supplement (LNS), and/or social and behaviour change communication (SBCC)
Impact achieved
Country of study
Research methodology
4-arm, community-based cluster RCT with 1,729 children
Journal paper title and link
Excerpt from Abstract
"At 24 mo of age, children who received UCT + LNS [rate ratio (RR): 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.97; P = 0.015) and UCT + LNS + SBCC (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.96; P = 0.007) had a significantly lower risk of being stunted compared with the UCT arm. No significant difference was noted among children who received UCT + SBCC (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.16; P = 0.675) in the risk of being stunted compared with the UCT arm. The pooled prevalence of stunting among children aged 6–23 mo was 41.7%, 44.8%, 38.5%, and 39.3% in UCT, UCT + SBCC, UCT + LNS, and UCT + LNS + SBCC, respectively. In pairwise comparisons, a significant impact on stunting among children in UCT + LNS (P = 0.029) and UCT + LNS + SBCC (P = <0.001) was noted compared with the UCT arm."



I understand that there is not enough of space, however, I suggest to write '14% decrease of stunting prevalence' (if it is correct) instead of '14% difference in the prevalence of stunting'. The word 'difference' doesn't immediately tell that it is a positive one. If we use 'decrease of stunting' it will help to focus on the positive change right away, not just on a change that we assume is positive but still need to open a link to get details.
User Image
Submitted by Richard Morgan (not verified) on Mon, 07/17/2023 - 02:17 Permalink

So if I read it correctly, it was the nutrition supplements that made the difference in terms of stunting reduction - not the SBCC? If so, the headline appears misleading ... Also of interest: what was the cost per child of the effective treatment arms? (Cost per case of stunting averted). Not that is necessarily an over-riding consideration, but it bears on replicability. How applicable is this one-country result expected to be in other country settings?

Add new comment

Your Priorities, Opportunities and Challenges? Complete the SURVEY

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.