@article{fdi:010065367,
  title = {{A}frican stakeholders' views of research options to improve nutritional status in sub-{S}aharan {A}frica},
  author = {{H}oldsworth, {M}. and {K}ruger, {A}. and {N}ago, {E}. and {L}achat, {C}. and {M}amiro, {P}. and {S}mit, {K}. and {G}arimoi-{O}rach, {C}. and {K}ameli, {Y}ves and {R}oberfroid, {D}. and {K}olsteren, {P}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{B}ackground {S}etting research priorities for improving nutrition in {A}frica is currently ad hoc and there is a need to shift the status quo in the light of slow progress in reducing malnutrition. {T}his study explored {A}frican stakeholders' views on research priorities in the context of environmental and socio-demographic changes that will impact on nutritional status in {A}frica in the coming years. {M}ethods {U}sing {M}ulti-{C}riteria {M}apping, quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from 91 stakeholders representing 6 stakeholder groups (health professionals, food {I}ndustry, government, civil society, academics and research funders) in {B}enin, {M}ozambique, {S}outh {A}frica, {T}anzania, {T}ogo and {U}ganda. {S}takeholders 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 {A}frica. {R}esults {I}mpact (28.3%), research efficacy (23.6%) and social acceptability (22.4%) were the criteria chosen the most to evaluate the performance of research options. {R}esearch 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. {B}ehavioural nutrition research was also highly appraised. {M}any stakeholders, particularly academics and government were optimistic about the value of ecological nutrition research (the impact of environmental change on nutritional status). {R}esearch funders did not share this enthusiasm. {M}olecular nutrition was least preferred, considered expensive, slow to have an impact and requiring infrastructure. {S}outh {A}frica ranked clinical and molecular nutrition the highest of all countries. {C}onclusion {R}esearch funders should redirect research funds in {A}frica towards the priorities identified by giving precedence to develop the evidence for effective community nutrition interventions. {E}xpanding research funding in behavioural and ecological nutrition was also valued and require multi-disciplinary collaborations between nutritionists, social scientists, agricultural and climate change scientists.},
  keywords = {{O}ver-nutrition ; research policy ; stakeholders ; sub-{S}aharan {A}frica ; undernutrition ; {AFRIQUE} {SUBSAHARIENNE} ; {BENIN} ; {MOZAMBIQUE} ; {AFRIQUE} {DU} {SUD} ; {TOGO} ; {OUGANDA}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{H}ealth {P}olicy and {P}lanning},
  volume = {30},
  numero = {7},
  pages = {863--874},
  ISSN = {0268-1080},
  year = {2015},
  DOI = {10.1093/heapol/czu087},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010065367},
}