TY - JOUR
T1 - Food security and nutrition outcomes of farmer field schools in eastern democratic republic of the Congo
AU - Jenga Jamaa II Study Team
AU - Doocy, Shannon
AU - Cohen, Sarah
AU - Emerson, Jillian
AU - Menakuntuala, Joseph
AU - Rocha, Jozimo Santos
AU - Klemm, Rolf
AU - Stron, Johnathan
AU - Brye, Laura
AU - Funna, Sonya
AU - Nzanzu, Jean Pierre
AU - Musa, Espoir
AU - Caulfield, Laura
AU - Colantouni, Elizabeth
N1 - Funding Information:
This article characterizes outcomes of an FFS intervention that was one component of the Jenga Jamaa II project, a development food assistance program funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Office of Food for Peace. Jenga Jamaa II sought to address household food insecurity and child undernutrition. It was implemented by Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) in Fizi and Uvira territories of South Kivu Province between 2011 and 2016 (Figure) and reached more than 258,000 beneficiaries with the following objectives:
Funding Information:
Funding: The Jenga Jamaa II project and this research were funded through a USAID Office of Food for Peace Cooperative Agreement (AID-FFP-A-11-00006).
PY - 2017/12
Y1 - 2017/12
N2 - Background: Food and nutrition security in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo are threatened by political instability and chronic poverty. The Jenga Jamaa II project, implemented between 2011 and 2016 in South Kivu Province, aimed to improve household food security and child nutritional status using various intervention strategies, including farmer field school (FFS) programs. Objective: To characterize the changes in agricultural production techniques, household food security, and child nutritional status associated with participation in FFS programs. Methods: We used a community-matched design to select FFS intervention and control households from 3 health zones in which the project was operating. Data on food security (Household Dietary Diversity Score [HDDS] and Household Food Insecurity Access Scale [HFIAS]) and child anthropometry were collected semiannually for 3.5 years in both groups. Additional data on agricultural practices were collected annually in the FFS group only. Focus groups with FFS staff and beneficiaries were conducted in the final project year. Statistical analyses included basic descriptive statistics such as paired t tests and analysis of covariance; regression models using a bootstrap were applied to generate P values and confidence intervals while accounting for differences between groups. Results: The study enrolled 388 FFS beneficiaries and their households in the intervention group and 324 non-FFS households in the control group. FFS participants reported increasing the number of different agricultural techniques they used by an average of 2.7 techniques over the project period, from 5.1 in 2013 to 7.9 in 2016 (P<.001). The mean HDDS and HFIAS improved more in the FFS group than in the control group (mean difference between intervention and control for HDDS was 0.9 points and for HFIAS was 4.6 points; P<.001). However, the prevalence of child stunting (60.2% intervention vs. 58.8% control) and underweight (22.3% intervention vs. 29.8% control) were similar in both groups at endline (P>.05). Conclusion: Although FFS participants diversified their agricultural production strategies and experienced improvements in household food security, there was not a positive impact on child nutritional status. In this food-insecure context, improvements in agricultural production alone are unlikely to significantly change child nutritional status—a health outcome with a complex, multilevel causal chain.
AB - Background: Food and nutrition security in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo are threatened by political instability and chronic poverty. The Jenga Jamaa II project, implemented between 2011 and 2016 in South Kivu Province, aimed to improve household food security and child nutritional status using various intervention strategies, including farmer field school (FFS) programs. Objective: To characterize the changes in agricultural production techniques, household food security, and child nutritional status associated with participation in FFS programs. Methods: We used a community-matched design to select FFS intervention and control households from 3 health zones in which the project was operating. Data on food security (Household Dietary Diversity Score [HDDS] and Household Food Insecurity Access Scale [HFIAS]) and child anthropometry were collected semiannually for 3.5 years in both groups. Additional data on agricultural practices were collected annually in the FFS group only. Focus groups with FFS staff and beneficiaries were conducted in the final project year. Statistical analyses included basic descriptive statistics such as paired t tests and analysis of covariance; regression models using a bootstrap were applied to generate P values and confidence intervals while accounting for differences between groups. Results: The study enrolled 388 FFS beneficiaries and their households in the intervention group and 324 non-FFS households in the control group. FFS participants reported increasing the number of different agricultural techniques they used by an average of 2.7 techniques over the project period, from 5.1 in 2013 to 7.9 in 2016 (P<.001). The mean HDDS and HFIAS improved more in the FFS group than in the control group (mean difference between intervention and control for HDDS was 0.9 points and for HFIAS was 4.6 points; P<.001). However, the prevalence of child stunting (60.2% intervention vs. 58.8% control) and underweight (22.3% intervention vs. 29.8% control) were similar in both groups at endline (P>.05). Conclusion: Although FFS participants diversified their agricultural production strategies and experienced improvements in household food security, there was not a positive impact on child nutritional status. In this food-insecure context, improvements in agricultural production alone are unlikely to significantly change child nutritional status—a health outcome with a complex, multilevel causal chain.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041055494&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041055494&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00203
DO - 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00203
M3 - Article
C2 - 29284698
AN - SCOPUS:85041055494
SN - 2169-575X
VL - 5
SP - 630
EP - 643
JO - Global Health Science and Practice
JF - Global Health Science and Practice
IS - 4
ER -