The team adapted the Social and behaviour change communication approach (SBCC) of Lamstein et al. (2014) to investigate the communication process of the programme interventions. This approach focuses on improving the target’s group access of knowledge and information on food and nutrition (Lamstein et al., 2014).
The SBCC approach (Figure 5) explains communication tools and channels but it neglects various factors such as the socio-economic and environmental determinants of mother and child nutrition security. Still, the SBCC approach is a useful and complementary concept to the conceptual framework on mother and child nutrition (see chapter 3.3). The SBCC strategies combine practical community-based events, multiple-media communication and face-to-face meetings (Nguyen et al., 2016; Rollins et al., 2016; Sinha et al., 2015).
Figure 5: Social behaviour change communication
Source: Own illustration, adapted from Lamstein et al. 2014.
When combined, these efforts are said to increase the effectiveness of interventions (Ruel et al., 2018). SBCC can be applied to health and nutrition interventions to help “individuals, households, groups, and communities” change their behaviour by adopting and maintaining improved health and nutrition practices. The SBCC approach seeks to provide information on adopting and maintaining high-impact nutrition-specific behaviours to a wide range of individuals, families, communities, institutions and countries (USAID-SPRING and GAIN, 2014).The theoretical concept of SBCC consists of three key activities (Table 11).
Table 11: The three components of the Social behaviour change communication approach
Components of the SBCC approach (Lamstein et al., 2014) Behaviour change
communication (BCC)
BCC describes the communication process to its beneficiaries. Direct face-to-face dialogue with the target group informs, motivates and addresses problems about relevant topics. BCC activities “typically target those who need to adopt and sustain priority practices (mothers, fathers, caregivers, and service providers) and may occur at home, in the community, or at a facility”. An example of a face-to-face dialogue is a cooking demonstration teaching participant about recipes, healthy diets and how to integrate them in their daily lives.
Advocacy Advocacy “informs and motivates to create a supportive environment to achieve program objectives and development goals. Advocacy creates awareness and encourages leaders to take actions to enable the
adoption of promoted practices”. This includes policy developments and recommended actions for decision makers and authorities that support desired outcomes.
Community and social mobilization
Community and social mobilization “engages and supports the participation of institutions, community networks, social/civic and religious groups to shift attitudes, structures, and norms to better support priority practices. “(C-Change, 2012; Lamstein et al., 2014).
Source: Lamstein et al.,2014.
Interpersonal communication is said to be effective in reaching smallholder farmers and can deliver best-practice information and coaching on a range of topics - from agricultural production tips to care and feeding practices (Kuyper and Schneider, 2016; Kumar et al., 2018). Mass media stimulates individual and societal dialogue (Young et al., 2016) and many development initiatives use mass media communication channels to reach larger audiences with timely, relatively low-cost and often entertaining messages. Radio22 is the most widely used broadcasting service amongst rural audiences in sub-Saharan Africa (Hudson et al., 2017; Myers, 2008).
The SEWOH-country packages place great value on delivering knowledge and information. In this context, this research investigates existing information
22 For the purpose of this study, radio and mobile services and internet based social media were examined.
Television and newspapers are not or less accessible in both rural areas.
channels and possible local influencers, i.e. communal change agents that could impact household decisions on nutrition and dietary outcomes of women and small children.
In line with the SBCC approach, this research evaluates the following communication and behavioural parameters:
▪ Influencers: Who are key persons and influencers within the communities that can serve as change agents?
▪ Volunteers / staff: Which role do the volunteers and the affiliated staff play?
▪ Information processes: How do the programmes reach the target group and how can it be extended?
▪ Media channels: Which are suitable media channels for information dissemination?
▪ Social mobilization: Which role do community events play in the information dissemination process?
▪ Non-communication strategies: Which incentives can contribute to achieve the programme goals? Does the distribution of favourable products support the process (e.g. growth charts)?
4 Methodology
This research facilitates an investigation of the multiple causes of food and nutrition security, of the role of (social) behaviour change communication strategies and of interventions to improve the nutrition situation of the target group.
Multi-method approach
This research employed a mixed-method approach that involved a quantitative regression analysis on food and nutrition security in both project regions and qualitative participatory methods exploring the target group’s dietary behaviour.
During the field research, the team worked with researchers and scientists of various disciplines from the University of Zambia (UNZA) and the Université de Lomé (UL) (see annex, p. 201). The researchers from Togo and Zambia were co-supervised by the cooperation partners in Zambia (IAPRI) and Togo (ITRA).
Affiliated individuals of FANSER in Zambia and ProSecAl in Togo were also part of the research team.
The research phases
Table 12 outlines the data collection that took place in five consecutive phases.
Table 12: The different research phases of this empirical research in both
The quantitative data of the Nutrition Baseline Surveys (2015) served as a basis for the development and design of the methods (see chapter 2). Describing a typical rural household, the researchers applied bivariate regression analysis using Stata® to correlate the dependent variable with various explaining variables.
Phase 2 Participatory observation
The team stayed in three groups with rural households. This offered an important opportunity to gain insight into the routines of the local community.
Phase 3 Pre-test
Looking at the results of phase 1 and 2, the methods were continuously adapted and tested on reliability and validity.
Phase 4
Empirical research in the villages
The researchers accompanied local authorities on transect walks to gain insights into local aspects of food and nutrition security. This was followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) in communities with different groups of people (e.g. women, beneficiaries, grandmothers).
In the FGDs, different tools (e.g. household gender dynamics, seasonal calendars, resource cards) are employed to explore the factors that drive the dietary habits of the target groups (also see Selener, Endara and Carvajal 1999). Parallel to the FGDs, the team conducted semi-structured key informant interviews with programme agents, community leaders, health workers, mothers, etc.
Phase 5
Expert interviews and workshops
Prior, during and after field research, the team conducted guideline-based expert interviews with agricultural experts, political office holders and project officers from other developmental organisations to gather background information on findings, contexts and
interventions and to develop recommendations.
Source: Own illustration.
Selection of research sites
GIZ selected Zambia (FANSER) and Togo (ProSecAl) as research sites as both countries share aspects of food and nutrition (in)security but differ in climate, geography and governance (a centralised system in Togo, and a multi-party, decentralised system in Zambia). Logistical requirements and local capacities of GIZ country programmes supported the selection of these two research sites. This research cooperates with the global programme “SEWOH Food and nutrition
security, enhanced resilience,” and thus focuses on the same target groups23 and the same project regions in Zambia and in Togo.
Participating villages24 were selected by the local implementation agencies. The main criteria of selection were differences in accessibility and infrastructure endowments, distance to markets and population size.
In order to establish a counter-factual and to gain a better understanding of the interventions’ impact, the research team collected data from beneficiary and non-beneficiary villages as well as from non-non-beneficiary households within the beneficiary villages. The teamspent the same amount of time in all the villages (beneficiary and non-beneficiary) in both project regions.
The empirical research in Zambia took place in August during the dry season and at the beginning of the hungry season. In Togo, the households were surveyed in September during the middle of the short rainy season. These different seasonal circumstances are considered in the analysis of the results.