Enabling environment and challenges for UN joint programming to strengthen nutrition: A multi‐country survey in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations plays an important role in supporting governments to implement nutrition policies and accelerate progress. The development of a common UN nutrition agenda and joint programming are two crucial aspects to improve complementarities and synergies to maximize the nutritional impact. The objective was to identify the success factors and challenges during the planning process of the UN common nutrition agenda in three different contexts. This is a qualitative study, conducted in Burkina Faso, Mali and Senegal between 2016 and 2018. The data was collected using an orientation kit developed by the UN Network which includes an inventory of UN nutrition actions, individual interviews, and consensus workshops. A total of 32 nutrition focal points from UN agencies participated in the study. In all countries, UN nutrition interventions were concentrated in areas with the highest number of stunted. Most of these actions were aligned with the priorities of nutrition policies and were complementary. Governance actions were mainly oriented towards sector governance. Key success of joint nutrition programming by UN includes commitment of country director and technicians, functional UN Network, participation of field-level stakeholders and strengthening of information between UN agencies. Certain prerequisites such as the existence of nutrition policy, stakeholder and action mapping, inventory of UN nutrition actions, situation analysis contributed to the formulation of a common nutrition agenda at country level. Among the challenges, we note effective implementation of joint programs to strengthen complementarity; diversity of beneficiary targeting strategies between sectors; low mobilization of resources; lack of coordination intra and inter agencies; understaffing; strengthening partnership and multisectoral accountability; ownership of the common nutrition agenda by all agencies. The development of common nutrition agenda and joint programs would maximize the nutritional impact in the country level.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".