scholarly journals Within-person, between-person and seasonal variance in nutrient intakes among 4- to 8-year-old rural Zambian children

2020 ◽  
Vol 123 (12) ◽  
pp. 1426-1433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bess L. Caswell ◽  
Sameera A. Talegawkar ◽  
Ward Siamusantu ◽  
Keith P. West ◽  
Amanda C. Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Nutrient Intake ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Nutrient Intakes ◽  
Components Of Variance ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Rural Villages ◽  
Post Harvest ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Usual Intake ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractEstimates of the components of nutrient intake variation are needed for modelling distributions of usual intake or predicting the usual intake of individuals. Season is a potential source of variation in nutrient intakes in addition to within- and between-person variation, particularly in low- or middle-income countries. We aimed to describe seasonal variation in nutrient intakes and estimate within-person, between-person and other major components of intake variance among Zambian children. Children from rural villages and peri-urban towns in Mkushi District, Zambia aged 4–8 years were enrolled in the non-intervened arm of a randomised controlled trial of pro-vitamin A carotenoid biofortified maize (n 200). Up to seven 24-h dietary recalls per child were obtained at monthly intervals over a 6-month period covering the late post-harvest (August–October), early lean (November–January) and late lean (February–April) seasons (2012–2013). Nutrient intakes varied significantly by season. For energy and most nutrients, intakes were highest in the early lean season and lower in the late post-harvest and late lean seasons. Season and recall on a market day had the strongest effects on nutrient intakes among covariates examined. Unadjusted within- to between-person variance ratios ranged from 4·5 to 31·3. In components of variance models, season accounted for 3–20 % of nutrient intake variance. Particularly in rural settings in low- and middle-income countries, where availability of locally grown, nutrient-rich foods may vary seasonally, studies should include replicates across seasons to more precisely estimate long-term usual intakes.

scholarly journals Protocol for process evaluation of CIVIC randomised controlled trial: Community-based InterVentions to prevent serIous Complications following spinal cord injury in Bangladesh

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e024226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Sohrab Hossain ◽  
Lisa A Harvey ◽  
Hueiming Liu ◽  
Md. Shofiqul Islam ◽  
Md. Akhlasur Rahman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPeople with spinal cord injuries in low-income and middle-income countries are highly vulnerable to life-threatening complications in the period immediately after discharge from hospital. We are conducting a randomised controlled trial in Bangladesh to determine whether all-cause mortality at 2 years can be reduced if health professionals regularly ring and visit participants in their homes following discharge. We will conduct a process evaluation alongside the trial to explain the trial results and determine the feasibility of scaling this intervention up in low-income and middle-income countries if it is found to be effective.Methods and analysisOur process evaluation is based on the Realist and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance frameworks. We will use a mixed methods approach that uses both qualitative and quantitative data. For example, we will audit a sample of telephone interactions between intervention participants and the healthcare professionals, and we will conduct semistructured interviews with people reflective of various interest groups. Quantitative data will also be collected to determine the number and length of interactions between the healthcare professionals and participants, the types of issues identified during each interaction and the nature of the support and advice provided by the healthcare professionals. All quantitative and qualitative data will be analysed iteratively before the final analysis of the trial results. These data will then be triangulated with the final results of the primary outcome.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the institutional ethics committee at the site in Bangladesh and from the University of Sydney, Australia. The study will be conducted in compliance with all stipulations of its protocol, the conditions of ethics committee approval and the relevant regulatory bodies. The results of the trial will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations at scientific conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12615000630516.

scholarly journals Enhanced peer-review for optimising publication of biomedical papers submitted from low- and middle-income countries: feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial

BJPsych Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Pitman ◽  
Raphael Underwood ◽  
Adam Hamilton ◽  
Peter Tyrer ◽  
Min Yang
Keyword(s):  
British Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Low And Middle Income

BackgroundBiomedical research from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is poorly represented in Western European and North American psychiatric journals.AimsTo test the feasibility of trialling a capacity-building intervention to improve LMIC papers' representation in biomedical journals.MethodWe designed an enhanced peer-review intervention delivered to LMIC corresponding/first authors of papers rejected by the British Journal of Psychiatry. We conducted a feasibility study, inviting consenting authors to be randomised to intervention versus none, measuring recruitment and retention rates, outcome completion and author/reviewer-rated acceptability.ResultsOf the 26/121 consenting to participate, 12 were randomised to the intervention and 14 to the control arms. Outcome completion was 100% but qualitative feedback from authors/reviewers was mixed, with attrition from 5/12 (42%) of intervention reviewers.ConclusionsLow interest among eligible authors and variable participation of expert reviewers suggested low feasibility of a full trial and a need for intervention redesign.Declaration of interestA.P., P.T. and M.Y. are British Journal of Psychiatry editorial board members. During this study P.T. was British Journal of Psychiatry Editor, A.P. was a trainee editor and A.H. was an editorial assistant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document