Practitioners working in nutrition must start thinking about the effect food, health, and education systems have on nutrition practices and outcomes. “Systems thinking” means paying attention to the unpredictable interactions among actors, sectors, disciplines, and determinants of nutrition. That thinking results in new ways of approaching, analyzing, and solving challenges, which must be applied through policy development, program design, implementation, and research. SPRING approaches systems in two ways – by articulating and promoting systems thinking for nutrition and by strengthening specific components of those systems. This paper makes the case for why systems thinking is important for nutrition and proposes several approaches to strengthening systems for nutrition.
Quantitative Tools and Methods
Attending to Interrelationships, Perspectives, and Boundaries
Synchronizing Monitoring with the Pace of Change in Complexity
CapacityPlus is a USAID global project, led by IntraHealth International, with the goal of strengthening human resources for health (HRH) in low- and middle-income countries. The project uses the Integrated Human Resource Information System (iHRIS) to help countries capture information on their health workforces and...
Screencast: Complexity-Aware Monitoring Discussion Note
The Learning Agenda focuses on local organizations, their capacity development and USAID’s role vis a vis both. The practical goal of the project is to help USAID more fully understand the implications of its avowed intention to partner more with local organizations and bolster country ownership. We wanted to flesh...
Modern communities of practice (CoP) built on a foundation of technology and social media are emerging on a global scale. Considering the speed at which technology evolves, best practices also continue to evolve for building, maintaining and measuring the effectiveness of these modern communities. This report attempts to outline and discuss key lessons learned to date and provide several recommendations based upon available evidence and expert opinion. But each CoP – defined here as a group of professionals with similar interests – is unique in purpose and must find its own path to success.
This Note provides guidance on the use of focus group interviews within evaluations.