The Communication Initiative
Development action with informed and engaged societies
The Communication Initiative
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
Print
a- a+
Published 2 years ago
Last updated 1 year ago
Read so far

SBC Communication - 14% Difference in Prevalence of Stunting

2 comments
Strategy researched
 
Unconditional cash transfer (UCT), lipid-based nutrient supplement (LNS), and/or social and behaviour change communication (SBCC)
 
Impact achieved
 
 
Country of study
 
Pakistan
 
Research methodology
 
4-arm, community-based cluster RCT with 1,729 children
 
Journal
 
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition; 2021
 
Journal paper title and link
 
Effectiveness of unconditional cash transfers combined with lipid-based nutrient supplement and/or behavior change communication to prevent stunting among children in Pakistan: a cluster randomized controlled trial
 
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."
 
Translation - see line 23
 
Summary at this link

 

Comments

Submitted by Sergiy.Pro on Sun, 05/21/2023 - 23:13 Permalink

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?