1 / 23

Two recent systematic reviews for development

Annette N. Brown, Deputy Director for AIES. Two recent systematic reviews for development. Outline. Review questions Inclusion criteria Theory of change Search pipeline Results Fun methods finding.

elysia
Download Presentation

Two recent systematic reviews for development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Annette N. Brown, Deputy Director for AIES Two recent systematic reviews for development

  2. Outline • Review questions • Inclusion criteria • Theory of change • Search pipeline • Results • Fun methods finding

  3. “Interventions in Developing Nations for Improving Primary and Secondary School Enrollment of Children: A Systematic Review” By Anthony Petrosino, Claire Morgan, Trevor A. Fronius, Emily E. Tanner-Smith, Robert F. Boruch, November 2012

  4. Review questions • What are the effects of interventions implemented in developing countries on measures of students’ enrollment, attendance, graduation, and progression? • Within those studies that report the effects of an intervention on [the above measures], what are the ancillary effects on learning outcomes?

  5. Inclusion criteria Population/participants: Primary and secondary school aged children in LMICs Interventions: Intended to affect one of the four primary outcomes Comparison: No specific program comparison Outcomes: Enrollment, attendance, graduation, and progression Studies: RCTs and QEDs

  6. “Farmer field schools for improving farming practices and farmer outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review” By Hugh Waddington, BirteSnilstveit, Jorge Hombrados, Martina Vojtkova, Daniel Phillips, and Howard White, December 2012

  7. Review questions • What is the impact of farmer field schools on their objectives in terms of ‘endpoint’ outcomes such as increased yields, net revenues and farmer empowerment, and intermediate outcomes such as capacity building and adoption of improved practices? • Under which circumstances and why: what are the facilitators and barriers to FFS effectiveness and sustainability?

  8. Inclusion criteria • Population/participants: Farm households in low and middle income countries • Intervention: Programs explicitly referred to as ‘farmer field school’ • Comparison: No specific program comparison • Outcomes: effectiveness across the causal chain • Knowledge → adoption → • Impact on yields, revenues, environment, health, empowerment • Studies: • Effects: experimental, quasi-experimental with controlled comparison • Barriers/facilitators: qualitative (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist 2006)

  9. Input 1 Training of trainers Input 2 Field school Capacity building (FFS participants) Capacity building (FFS neighbours) Adoption (FFS participants) Adoption (FFS neighbours) Measured impacts: Yield, input-output ratio, income, empowerment, environmental outcomes, health T of Change

  10. Input 1 Training of trainers Input 2 Field school - Facilitators adequately trained - Farmers and facilitators attend sufficient meetings - FFS synchronised with planting season - Field days/follow-up - High degree of social cohesion - Geographical proximity to other farmers (observation) or market (communication) Capacity building (FFS participants) Capacity building (neighbours) Adoption (FFS participants) Adoption (neighbours) • - Curriculum relevant to problems facing farmers • Farmer attitudes changed (convinced message appropriate) • Relative advantage over old techniques - New technology appropriate - Market access - Favorable prices - Environmental factors including weather, soil fertility Measured impacts: Yield, input-output ratio, income, empowerment, environmental outcomes. health

  11. 27,866 titles screened Causal Chain Analysis Effectiveness 1453 abstracts screened 1,112 abstracts screened 751 excluded 126 no access 369 full text obtained 312 full text sought 49 no access 257 excluded 186 excluded: 128 on relevance 58 on design (no comparison) 183 Extension impact papers: 134 FFS 49 non-FFS Qualitative Synthesis BB+ Synthesis 134 FFS impact papers 25 qualitative papers 30 IE and sister papers 80 individual FFS studies 20 individual FFS studies 11 individual FFS studies

  12. Positive impacts on knowledge among participants

  13. Increased yields among FFS-beneficiaries not neighbours

  14. Study ID ES (95% CI) ES (95% CI) FFS participants Pananurak, 2010 (India) 0.52 (0.32, 0.85) 0.52 (0.32, 0.85) Praneetvatakul & Waibel, 2006 (Thailand) 0.54 (0.39, 0.76) 0.54 (0.39, 0.76) Pananurak, 2010 (Pakistan) 0.55 (0.41, 0.75) 0.55 (0.41, 0.75) Cavatassi et al., 2011 (Ecuador) 0.82 (0.55, 1.23) 0.82 (0.55, 1.23) Subtotal (I-squared = 8.0%, p = 0.353) 0.59 (0.49, 0.71) 0.59 (0.49, 0.71) . FFS neighbours Pananurak, 2010 (India) 0.58 (0.24, 1.41) 0.58 (0.24, 1.41) Pananurak, 2010 (Pakistan) 0.64 (0.37, 1.10) 0.64 (0.37, 1.10) Cavatassi et al., 2011 (Ecuador) 0.69 (0.43, 1.11) 0.69 (0.43, 1.11) Praneetvatakul & Waibel, 2006 (Thailand) 1.04 (0.32, 3.40) 1.04 (0.32, 3.40) Subtotal (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.878) 0.68 (0.49, 0.93) 0.68 (0.49, 0.93) . NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis .1 .2 .5 1 1 2 Favours intervention Reduced environmental risk factors

  15. Summary of quantitative findings • FFS increase knowledge and improve adoption of the FFS practices • On average increasing yields and/or incomes • Suggestions of farmers feeling empowered • Limited, if any, spillovers • Neighbours do not adopt the practices consistently

  16. Sensitivity analysis:Yields by risk of bias statusHigh risk of bias studies over-estimate impacts

  17. www.3ieimpact.org Thank you!

More Related