Nutrition modeling tools: a qualitative study of influence on policy decision making and determining factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutrition modeling tools (NMTs) generate evidence to inform policy and program decision making; however, the literature is generally limited to modeling methods and results, rather than use cases and their impacts. We aimed to document the policy influences of 12 NMTs and identify factors influencing them. We conducted semistructured interviews with 109 informants from 30 low- and middle-income country case studies and used thematic analysis to understand the data. NMTs were mostly applied by international organizations to inform national government decision making. NMT applications contributed to enabling environments for nutrition and influenced program design and policy in most cases; however, this influence could be strengthened. Influence was shaped by processes for applying the NMTs; ownership of the analysis and data inputs, and capacity building in NMT methods, encouraged uptake. Targeting evidence generation at specific policy cycle stages promoted uptake; however, where advocacy capacity allowed, modeling was embedded ad hoc into emerging policy discussions and had broader influence. Meanwhile, external factors, such as political change and resource constraints of local partner organizations, challenged NMT implementation. Importantly, policy uptake was never the result of NMTs exclusively, indicating they should be nested persistently and strategically within the wider evidence and advocacy continuum, rather than being stand-alone activities.
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 | 0.032 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".