Making programmes worth their salt: Assessing the context, fidelity and outcomes of implementation of the double fortified salt programme in Uttar Pradesh, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Double fortified salt (DFS) has proven efficacy in addressing iron deficiency and anaemia, thus improving maternal and child nutrition outcomes. However, DFS delivery in large-scale settings is less understood, with limited documentation of its fidelity of implementation (FOI). We assessed the FOI of the DFS intervention in Uttar Pradesh, India, to improve the design and implementation of such programmes that aim to reduce the anaemia burden, especially in women of reproductive age (WRA). We conducted in-depth interviews with DFS programme staff (n = 25) and end-user WRAs (23), guided by a programme impact pathway. We transcribed and thematically analysed the interviews and used an adapted analytic framework to document FOI across four domains-objects of intervention, implementation staff, implementation context and target of implementation. DFS utilisation remained low due to a combination of factors including poor product quality, distribution challenges, ineffective promotion and low awareness amongst end-user WRAs. Motivation levels were higher amongst district-level staff compared to frontline staff, who lacked supervisory support and effective incentives to promote DFS. Three typologies of DFS users emerged-'believers', 'thrifters' and 'naysayers'-who indicated differing reasons for DFS purchase and its use or nonuse. The implementation of the DFS programme varied significantly from its theorised programme impact pathway. The adapted analytic framework helped document FOI and assess the programme's readiness for impact assessments and subsequent scale-up. The programme needs product quality improvements, incentivised distribution and stronger promotion to effectively deliver and improve the realisation of its potential as an anaemia prevention strategy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".