Participatory Video Influenced Behaviour and Social Environment of Ghanaian Female Adolescent Learners: A Most Significant Change Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assess the perceived influence and value of a participatory video intervention among beneficiaries. A 2019 cluster randomized control trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03704649) randomly selected 20 schools in one Ghanaian rural district and enrolled adolescent girls, 13–16 y old. All schools received a curriculum about adolescent nutrition. The 181 girls in the 10 intervention schools also received participatory video workshops to increase nutrition literacy. The Most Significant Change (MSC) method was used to involve adolescents in the intervention arm and local stakeholders to identify and evaluate the value of the participatory video experience. Project staff collected 116 stories of change from adolescents. The stories described shifts in 4 domains: participant, peer, and family behavior and structural changes in the school/community. The lead researcher and project staff developed and used a selection rubric to identify stories that reflected heightened nutrition literacy; 14 stories were chosen. Project staff then conducted in-depth interviews with the 14 adolescents to elaborate on story details and perceived resonance. Finally, a panel of local stakeholders reviewed and assessed the 14 stories and chose four MSC stories, one for each domain. A separate thematic analysis by the lead researcher identified emerging patterns of motivation and action across the 14 interviews. The 4 MSC stories revealed how an adolescent: 1) raised and saved money to buy herself iron-rich foods when parents would not comply, 2) encouraged neighbours to eat iron-rich foods 3) taught a father to weed around iron-rich foods on the farm, and 4) encouraged a sister to sell diverse foods at her school. Local stakeholders valued stories that addressed common community nutrition issues in a creative and sustainable way, whereas adolescents prioritized stories that showed a change in health outcomes. Participatory evaluation highlights valuation of local stakeholders and beneficiaries, perceptions that are vital to better understand the influence and reach of interventions. The MSC technique can reveal unexpected benefits of an intervention. The Canadian Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Scholarship, funded by IDRC and SSHRC
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".