African stakeholders’ views of research options to improve nutritional status in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Auteur(s) :
Kruger A., Holdsworth M., Nago Koukoubou E., Lachat C., Mamiro P., Smit K., Garimoi-Orach C., Kameli Y., Roberfroid D., Kolsteren P.
Date :
Août, 2014
Source(s) :
Health Policy Plan.. # p
Adresse :
Public Health Section, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, Africa Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research, North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Benin, Department of Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium, Nutrition and Child Health Unit, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium, Department of Food Science and Technology, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, School of Public Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda and Research Unit 'NUTRIPASS', Institute of Research for Development, Montpellier, France michelle.holdsworth@sheffield.ac.uk

Sommaire de l'article

BACKGROUND
Setting research priorities for improving nutrition in Africa is currently ad hoc and there is a need to shift the status quo in the light of slow progress in reducing malnutrition. This study explored African stakeholders' views on research priorities in the context of environmental and socio-demographic changes that will impact on nutritional status in Africa in the coming years.

METHODS
Using Multi-Criteria Mapping, quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from 91 stakeholders representing 6 stakeholder groups (health professionals, food Industry, government, civil society, academics and research funders) in Benin, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Uganda. Stakeholders appraised six research options (ecological nutrition, nutritional epidemiology, community nutrition interventions, behavioural nutrition, clinical nutrition and molecular nutrition) for how well they could address malnutrition in Africa.

RESULTS
Impact (28.3%), research efficacy (23.6%) and social acceptability (22.4%) were the criteria chosen the most to evaluate the performance of research options. Research on the effectiveness of community interventions was seen as a priority by stakeholders because they were perceived as likely to have an impact relatively quickly, were inexpensive and cost-effective, involved communities and provided direct evidence of what works. Behavioural nutrition research was also highly appraised. Many stakeholders, particularly academics and government were optimistic about the value of ecological nutrition research (the impact of environmental change on nutritional status). Research funders did not share this enthusiasm. Molecular nutrition was least preferred, considered expensive, slow to have an impact and requiring infrastructure. South Africa ranked clinical and molecular nutrition the highest of all countries.

CONCLUSION
Research funders should redirect research funds in Africa towards the priorities identified by giving precedence to develop the evidence for effective community nutrition interventions. Expanding research funding in behavioural and ecological nutrition was also valued and require multi-disciplinary collaborations between nutritionists, social scientists, agricultural and climate change scientists.

Source : Pubmed
Retour