Policy overview of the multisectoral nutrition planning process: The progress, challenges, and lessons learned from Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Malnutrition is a multifactorial problem, and multisectoral planning is an indispensable tool. The objective of this study was (a) to evaluate the extent to which nutrition is integrated into policies and (b) to describe the process used by the government of Burkina Faso to reform its policy frameworks and multisectoral nutrition planning. METHODS: This was a qualitative study, and data were collected in two key steps: first, through a policy overview conducted in 2015 and, second, in November 2017, through a document review and individual stakeholder interviews with 32 key actors involved in national nutrition planning. RESULTS: The extent to which nutrition is integrated into development policies varied from one sector to another. Since 2014, Burkina Faso has initiated nutrition planning through a multisectoral approach involving six sectors. This process was implemented in three key stages. Progress includes revision of national nutrition policy towards multisectoral perspective, formulation of a consensual and quality multisectoral nutrition strategic plan, creation of nutrition budget line, and establishment of nutrition technical secretariat. CONCLUSION: To improve the anchoring of multisectoral coordination bodies at the supra-ministerial level, mobilizing resources and promoting sector accountability are key next steps that would contribute to the success of the implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".