The Communication Initiative
Development action with informed and engaged societies
The Communication Initiative

After nearly 28 years, The Communication Initiative (The CI) Global is entering a new chapter. 

Following a period of transition, the global website has been transferred to the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in South Africa, where it will be administered by the Social and Behaviour Change Communication Division. Wits' commitment to social change and justice makes it a trusted steward for The CI's legacy and future. 

On the transfer, co-founder Victoria Martin expressed her pleasure to see this work continue under Wits' leadership, knowing that co-founder Warren Feek (1953–2024) would have felt deep pride in The CI Global's Africa-led direction. 

As Wits, we honour the team and partners who sustained The CI for decades and look forward building from that strong base. This includes co-founders Warren Feek (1953-2024) and Victoria Martin as well as La Iniciativa de Comunicación (CILA), which continues independently at lainiciativadecomunicacion.com with links to The CI Global site. We are also eager to forge new partnerships and entertain new ideas as we consider how best to contribute to social and behaviour change in our rapidly evolving environment.

If you are joining the International Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) Summit in Panama, please join Wits and CILA on Monday, 22 June, to share your thoughts and suggestion for the relaunch of the Communication Initiative. We will be in Pacifica 5 from 12-1:25 for the Refuel, Reflect, and Renew Lunch Series: The Communication Initiative: celebrating a driving force for Communication for Social Change and the way forward. We will reflect on the legacy of Warren Feek and family in creating the Communication Initiative, consider the contributions of CI over the years and then turn our attention towards the future in this dynamic session. 

If you are unable to join us in Panama, we still want to hear from you. Please contribute your thoughts by following this link: https://redcap.link/CommunicationInitiative2026 or reaching out to ci_surveys@commint.com. 

You can also follow the QR Code:

 https://redcap.link/CommunicationInitiative2026

Time to read
1 minute
Print
a- a+
Published 4 years ago
Last updated 3 years ago
Read so far

SBC Communication - 14% Difference in Prevalence of Stunting

2 comments
Strategy researched
 
Unconditional cash transfer (UCT), lipid-based nutrient supplement (LNS), and/or social and behaviour change communication (SBCC)
 
Impact achieved
 
 
Country of study
 
Pakistan
 
Research methodology
 
4-arm, community-based cluster RCT with 1,729 children
 
Journal
 
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition; 2021
 
Journal paper title and link
 
Effectiveness of unconditional cash transfers combined with lipid-based nutrient supplement and/or behavior change communication to prevent stunting among children in Pakistan: a cluster randomized controlled trial
 
Excerpt from Abstract
 
"At 24 mo of age, children who received UCT + LNS [rate ratio (RR): 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.97; P = 0.015) and UCT + LNS + SBCC (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.96; P = 0.007) had a significantly lower risk of being stunted compared with the UCT arm. No significant difference was noted among children who received UCT + SBCC (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.16; P = 0.675) in the risk of being stunted compared with the UCT arm. The pooled prevalence of stunting among children aged 6–23 mo was 41.7%, 44.8%, 38.5%, and 39.3% in UCT, UCT + SBCC, UCT + LNS, and UCT + LNS + SBCC, respectively. In pairwise comparisons, a significant impact on stunting among children in UCT + LNS (P = 0.029) and UCT + LNS + SBCC (P = <0.001) was noted compared with the UCT arm."
 
Translation - see line 23
 
Summary at this link

 

Comments

Submitted by Sergiy.Pro on Sun, 05/21/2023 - 23:13 Permalink

I understand that there is not enough of space, however, I suggest to write '14% decrease of stunting prevalence' (if it is correct) instead of '14% difference in the prevalence of stunting'. The word 'difference' doesn't immediately tell that it is a positive one. If we use 'decrease of stunting' it will help to focus on the positive change right away, not just on a change that we assume is positive but still need to open a link to get details.
User Image
Submitted by Richard Morgan (not verified) on Mon, 07/17/2023 - 02:17 Permalink

So if I read it correctly, it was the nutrition supplements that made the difference in terms of stunting reduction - not the SBCC? If so, the headline appears misleading ... Also of interest: what was the cost per child of the effective treatment arms? (Cost per case of stunting averted). Not that is necessarily an over-riding consideration, but it bears on replicability. How applicable is this one-country result expected to be in other country settings?