Exploring methods for assessing stakeholder perspectives in Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN) countries: a scoping review

Abstract

Objectives

The scaling-up nutrition (SUN) initiative, which was launched in 2010 to eradicate malnutrition in all its forms by 2030, collaborates with a diverse range of stakeholders, such as governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), donors, businesses and academia. Given the widespread adoption of this multisectoral approach, it is crucial to explore methods for evaluating the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in child undernutrition topics.

Design

This scoping review was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.

Data sources

Six peer-reviewed databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL and PROQUEST ASSIA, were systematically searched.

Eligibility criteria

Original English studies published between 1 January 2010 and 1 June 2023, focusing on undernutrition in SUN countries.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion and extracted data using Rayyan.

Results

Out of the 4533 articles, 19 met the inclusion criteria for the review, and 5 more were added through manual searches. These studies were conducted in 14 SUN countries, with 62% using mixed methods and the remaining using qualitative methods. Six methods were used to gather stakeholder perspectives, including in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, Net-Map, organisational network analysis and Q methodology. Most studies focused on government, development partners and NGOs, while only two studies involved the business network.

Conclusions

Our study indicates that study on stakeholder perspectives in SUN countries focuses mainly on those showing progress in malnutrition/undernutrition reduction. Future research should explore countries with less progress to improve partnership frameworks. The SUN movement should establish a standard method for evaluating stakeholder perspectives, considering both outcomes and processes.

Trial registration number

The final protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework in July 2023 (https://osf.io/te7cb).

Correspondence to Dr Adi Lukas Kurniawan; [email protected]

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

• The scoping review compiles all existing literature on multistakeholder perspective analysis in scaling-up nutrition (SUN) countries published in peer-reviewed journals.

• This review misses out on non-peer-reviewed sources, including reviewing SUN movement-related documents that attempted to include stakeholder perspectives in the annual review process.

• This review is limited to child undernutrition.

• Non-English-language articles were excluded.

Introduction

Undernutrition is a widespread issue globally, impacting a significant number of all deaths among children under 5 years old.¹ According to the latest estimates, 22.3% of children are affected by stunting, while 6.8% are affected by wasting.² Although there has been a noticeable improvement in reducing stunting rates since 2000, the 2030 global target of 13.5% remains out of reach.² Wasting rates have only slightly improved, with a minor reduction of 1.9% between 2000 and 2020.² Undernutrition can have detrimental effects on a child’s physical and cognitive development, with stunting being a persistent condition often linked to poor socioeconomic conditions and overall health during pregnancy and early life.³

Scaling-up nutrition (SUN) is a global initiative launched in 2010 with the goal of reducing malnutrition.⁴ The SUN Movement Secretariat, led by the SUN Coordinator appointed by the UN Secretary General, facilitates the global movement. It includes 66 low- and middle-income countries and 4 Indian states and aims to create a world free of malnutrition by 2030.⁴ SUN aims to address the root cause of malnutrition through nutrition-sensitive interventions from actors outside the health sector while also ensuring continuity of nutrition-specific interventions.⁴ As of now, SUN countries are divided into five regions: East and Southern Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, South and Southeast Asia and the Pacific, West and Central Africa and West and Central Asia. The SUN 3.0 Movement for 2021–2025 continues to prioritise nutrition as a universal agenda aligned with the sustainable development goals.⁵ The initiative is driven by a multistakeholder platform consisting of government, civil society organisation (CSO)/non-governmental organisations (NGOs), donors, businesses and academia.⁶ The country-driven and country-led approach involves multisectoral and multistakeholder actions, with a SUN Government Focal Point serving as the key driving force for the national movement.⁶

In the nutrition domain, a multisector approach has gained widespread use since The Lancet’s series in 2008 emphasised the importance of preventing undernutrition during the first 1000 days, from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday.⁷ In 2013, The Lancet called for a collective effort from all stakeholders within a multisector framework to solve undernutrition problems.⁸ Since then, this approach has been implemented on a scale in member countries of the SUN initiative.

While the SUN member countries regularly conduct annual self-assessments about the undernutrition reduction progress and how the process of mainstreaming nutrition issues at a country level, little is known about the multistakeholder perspective on this network in each country. The SUN secretariat at the global level has mainstreamed the stages of action every 5 years and has published the reporting recommendation in stage 1 (2010–2015) and stage 2 (2016–2020) to capture the process at the country level: enabling environment, policies and legislation, implementation and finance. However, the publication in peer-reviewed journals as the basis of evidence remains scarce. We are looking especially at the method that can be employed for the whole SUN countries to allow for cross-country learning in strengthening the nutrition commitment. Identifying how the network of nutrition plays and their dynamics could draw a common understanding of how to push the nutrition agenda forward. Therefore, this study aimed to synthesise methods that have been used to assess the stakeholder perspectives in the context of child undernutrition. By synthesising the existing methods used to assess stakeholder perspectives in the context of child undernutrition, this study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness, strengths and limitations of various assessment approaches.

Methods

Our scoping review was built on the five methodological frameworks by Arksey and O’Malley,⁹ with enhancements by Levac et al.¹⁰ The five frameworks include identifying research questions, identifying relevant studies, selecting studies, charting data and collating and summarising data. Our review also adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews for appropriate reporting.¹¹ The protocol for this scoping review was registered with Open Science Framework in July 2023 prior to the abstract and title review (https://osf.io/te7cb). This study analyses the existing research studies and, therefore, involves no patients or members of the public involved and, therefore, no patient consent was sought for publication.

Identifying studies and search strategy

Following the identification of the research question, the electronic search strategy was developed with the assistance of a librarian from the University of Heidelberg to identify Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH terms to ensure that an appropriate search strategy was used. The research question was then translated into a population, concept and context (PCC) framework to make the search strategy more systematic. The search string was formulated as follows: ‘nutrition’, ‘malnutrition’, ‘undernutrition’, ‘stunt’, ‘underweight’, ‘deficienc*’, ‘Scaling Up Nutrition’, ‘SUN networks’, ‘multisector’ and ‘child undernutrition’. We applied appropriate Boolean operators (ie, ‘AND’ and ‘OR’) for the appropriate permutation of the search string. The complete list of specific terms that were used can be found in online supplemental material 1.

The refined search strings were used to identify relevant studies. Original research articles were identified by searching across six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL and PROQUEST ASSIA). The search duration was limited to studies that were published between 1 January 2010 and 1 June 2023. The timeframe was chosen because the SUN movement started on 1 January 2010 until June 2023, which constitutes the project period ending. Furthermore, we limited our searches to articles that were published in English to reduce the risk of misinterpretation. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the study are shown in table 1.

Table 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the review

Inclusion

Exclusion

Original studies published between 1 January 2010 and 1 June 2023. Full-text paper published in peer-reviewed journals. Studies that meet the PCC criteria (conducted in SUN member country, exploring stakeholder perspectives and in the context of undernutrition among children under 5 years old). Studies that were conducted in English. Studies that focus on the health domain.

Studies that were published before 2010. Studies written in a language other than English. Conference proceedings/abstract, editorial, commentaries, opinion, review, research protocol and grey literature. Study that did not assess multistakeholder perspective on a national level. Epidemiological study on multisector intervention. Studies of non-health topics other than child undernutrition or nutrition problems caused by other diseases.

PCC, population, concept and context; SUN, scaling-up nutrition.

Selecting studies

The retrieved articles from each database were inserted into endnote for an initial duplicate check, followed by uploading the files to Rayyan for the title and abstract screening process.

Rayyan is a free, web-based platform that allows researchers to manage a collaborative systematic review.¹² Two reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion. Any disagreements were discussed between the pair of reviewers and a third-party reviewer was consulted if consensus was not reached. Articles were included in the review if they were full-text papers, published at least in 2010, and met the PCC criteria. Studies were excluded if they were not original research studies, were conference abstracts, editorials, letters to the editor, commentaries, opinions, reviews and research protocol, did not assess multistakeholder perspective on a national level, were studies of health topics other than child undernutrition or were published in a non-English language.

Extracting data, summarising and synthesis

The quality of the included studies was assessed critically using the mixed method appraisal tool (MMAT) 2018.¹³ MMAT is an instrument designed to enable researchers to evaluate the methodological quality of five study categories: qualitative research, randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, quantitative descriptive studies and mixed methods studies.¹⁴ Two independent reviewers extracted specific data from the selected full-text articles through an Excel spreadsheet. The information extracted includes the details of the authors, publication years, countries, methods, and a list of stakeholders involved. In case of any disagreements between the reviewers, they resolved the issue through consensus. On the completion of the extraction, major findings from the included studies were summarised and mapped into a framework of methods.

Results

The initial search of five databases yielded 4533 articles. Following the elimination of duplicates and the completion of title and abstract screening, a total of 67 articles were selected for full-text review. Among these, 19 articles fulfilled all the inclusion criteria and were ultimately included in the final review. Additionally, five articles were added to the final review from a manual search. The PRISMA flow diagram demonstrating the study selection process is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Study characteristics

Among the 24 studies analysed in table 2, 15 (62%) employed mixed methods, while 9 (38%) used qualitative methods. Three prominent study groups emerged: ‘Stories of Change’ (n=7), the South Asia Infant Feeding Research Network (SAIFRN) (n=5) and the Exemplars study (n=5). The study group referenced in the review refers to the funding organisation. Although the study may be conducted by different researchers, there is an interrelation in terms of funding and research objectives, despite not all studies addressing the same topics. The analysis of the records revealed six distinct methods for collecting stakeholder perspectives data. In-depth interviews (IDIs) were the most used method (n=11), followed closely by Net-Map (n=8). The countries represented in the review include studies from 14 different nations. Of these, Nepal has the largest number of records (n=4), followed by Ethiopia (n=3) and Senegal (n=3).

Table 2

Characteristics of included studies

No	Author (year)	Country	Study design	Sample size	Method of sampling	Study groups	Method of data collection	List of stakeholders involved	QA score
1	Adeyemi et al.30	Nigeria	Qualitative	16	Snowball	Stories of Change	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
2	Fox et al.34	Senegal	Qualitative	30	Snowball	Not specified	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, parliamentary, academia	100%
3	Galaurchi et al.37	Ghana	Qualitative	11	Purposive	Not specified	IDI, FGD	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners	100%
4	Bach et al.35	Ethiopia	Qualitative	20	Snowball	Not specified	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners	80%
5	Gaihre et al.38	Nepal	Qualitative	33	Purposive	Not specified	FGD	Government, CSO/NGO, academia	100%
6	Nisbett et al.29	Bangladesh	Qualitative	11	Purposive	Stories of Change	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	80%
7	Kampman et al.32	Senegal	Qualitative	25	Purposive and snowball	Stories of Change	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
8	Harris et al.33	Zambia	Qualitative	43	Not specified	Stories of Change	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, business community	80%
9	Kennedy et al.36	Ethiopia	Qualitative	24	Purposive	Not specified	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
10	Turowska et al.31	Burkina Faso	Mixed methods	20	Purposive	Stories of Change	Net-Map	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
11	Ruducha et al.39	Nepal	Mixed methods	22	Purposive	Not specified	ONA	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners	100%
12	Aryeetey et al.28	Ghana	Mixed methods	35	Purposive	Stories of Change	Net-Map	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
13	Conway et al.17	Nepal	Mixed methods	18	Purposive and snowball	Exemplars study	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
14	Brar et al.18	Senegal	Mixed methods	21	Purposive	Exemplars study	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
15	Tasic et al.19	Ethiopia	Mixed methods	11	Purposive	Exemplars study	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
16	Huicho et al.20	Peru	Mixed methods	10	Purposive	Exemplars study	IDI, FGD	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
17	Wigle et al.21	Kyrgyz Republic	Mixed methods	20	Purposive	Exemplars study	IDI	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners	100%
18	Harris27	Zambia	Mixed methods	70	Purposive	Stories of Change	Net-Map	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, business community, academia	100%
19	Rasheed et al.22	Bangladesh	Mixed methods	73	Purposive	SAIFRN	Net-Map	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
20	Michaud-Létourneau and Pelletier40	Mozambique	Mixed methods	21	Purposive	Not specified	Q methodology	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
21	Karn et al.25	Nepal	Mixed methods	25	Purposive	SAIFRN	Net-Map	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
22	Godakandage et al.26	Sri Lanka	Mixed methods	35	Purposive	SAIFRN	Net-Map	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
23	Mahmood et al.15	Pakistan	Mixed methods	10	Purposive	SAIFRN	Net-Map	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%
24	Puri et al.16	India	Mixed methods	96	Snowball	SAIFRN	Net-Map	Government, CSO/NGO, development partners, academia	100%

CSO, civil society organisation; FGD, focus group discussion; IDI, in-depth interview; NGO, non-governmental organisation; ONA, organisational network analysis; SAIFRN, South Asia Infant Feeding Research Network.

In all the studies, participants from government and CSOs/NGO were included in the data collection process. In some studies, Donor and UN organisations were often interchanged. To maintain consistency, these two categories have been combined and referred to as development partners. Therefore, the five core networks within the SUN framework consist of the government, development partners, CSO/NGO sector, business community and academia. Excluding these five categories, one study (N2) additionally included parliamentary institutions in the national-level data collection. Only one study (N18) comprised all five main SUN networks, while the majority (n=17) included four out of the five types of SUN networks. Business networks were the least represented, appearing in only two studies.

The 14 countries from the five regions of the SUN movement represent only 20% of the total 65 SUN member countries included in the review. In September 2023, Panama joined the movement as the 66th member country; however, this is outside the data collection timeframe, which ended in June 2023. Certain studies, such as the Exemplars and Stories of Change, specifically targeted countries based on their success. The Exemplars study focused on countries that achieved a significant reduction in stunting prevalence between 2000 and 2015 despite having a smaller Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.¹⁵ Similarly, the Stories of Change studies were conducted in countries with high levels of undernutrition, a commitment to address the issue and positive trends in nutrition outcomes.¹⁶

The Exemplars study seeks to conduct a comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the factors that have contributed to the reduction of stunting in Nepal,¹⁷ Senegal,¹⁸ Ethiopia,¹⁹ Peru²⁰ and the Kyrgyz Republic²¹ by interviewing key national-level stakeholders. This approach is designed to identify contextual factors and interventions that have played a role in the reduction of stunting. The Exemplars study employed IDIs as the primary method of data collection, except for Peru,²⁰ where focus group discussions (FGDs) were initially used, followed by IDI for clarification and additional insights.

The SAIFRN aims to conduct studies that assess infant and young child feeding (IYCF) policy situations and identify areas for improvement in five countries: Bangladesh,²² Nepal,²³ Sri Lanka,²⁴ Pakistan¹⁵ and India.¹⁶ These studies used Net-Map, an interview-based mapping tool, to analyse the relationships, influence and objectives of the stakeholders involved in the IYCF situation.²⁴ In all SAIFRN studies, the focus lies on actors influencing two main categories: funding and technical information.^22–26 Specifically, they seek to identify key policy actors, actors providing funding and technical assistance, and the influence of various stakeholders in shaping IYCF policies.

The ‘Stories of Change in Nutrition’ studies had diverse objectives; however, they all focused on understanding how nutrition became a top priority in each country and the factors that contributed to significant achievements in nutrition. For instance, the study conducted in Zambia²⁷ analysed the process of incorporating international frameworks into national policies, while other studies examined the factors that led to rapid reductions in specific nutrition issues, such as child stunting and anaemia in Ghana,²⁸ stunting in Bangladesh²⁹ and overall malnutrition in Nigeria.³⁰ Moreover, additional studies in Burkina Faso,³¹ Senegal³² and Zambia³³ assessed the broader picture of nutrition policy at the national level. The domains of question in ‘Stories of Change’ studies differ based on the data collection tool that is being used. Four studies used IDI,^{29 30 32 33} while three studies used Net-Map.^{27 28 31}

Furthermore, IDI was used as the data collection tool in three studies out of the seven that were not a part of a larger group.^34–36 One study was conducted in Senegal, where stakeholders were interviewed to identify the factors that contribute to successful collaboration and the challenges faced in the process.¹⁸ The leaders of each organisation were then asked to provide a list of all nutrition-related projects they were working on in Senegal, along with a list of partners.¹⁸ These data were used to create an affiliation network that revealed patterns of influence between organisations and indicated the degree of reachability of an organisation based on the number of collaborations they had in nutrition programmes.³⁴ The most reachable actors served as metagovernors within the network.³⁴ In Ethiopia, interview questions focused on five dimensions: coordination and structural accountability, political commitment, financing, human resources and data monitoring and transparency.³⁵ Earlier studies in the same country examined four dimensions: the nature of the nutrition problem, decision making and ownership, programme design and implementation and challenges in implementing the national nutrition strategy and plan.^{19 35 36}

Four remaining studies^37–40 used unique data collection methods. For example, a 2022 study in Nepal used organisational network analysis (ONA) to identify working relationships between organisations related to the development of the multisector nutrition plan (MSNP).³⁹ Stakeholders completed a questionnaire and sorted these relationships into three categories based on the MSNP development stage: policy dialogue and development, strategic planning and implementing the scale-up plan. Finally, they were asked open-ended questions about barriers and facilitators of MSNP development in Nepal.³⁹ Another study that was conducted in 2019 on multisector approaches to improve food security, nutrition and population health in Nepal used a workshop-based approach gathered insights from stakeholders.³⁸ In their study, participants were divided into five focus groups based on five topics guide. The study identified current practices, key institutions, key interventions, implementation procedures, key achievements and existing gaps in multisector programmes related to food security, nutrition, environment and health in Nepal.³⁸ Galaurchi et al. in their study on stakeholder perspectives on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of 1000 days plus nutrition policy activities in Ghana used a combination of IDI and FGD to gather information on the 1000 days plus programme.³⁷ Questions in their study related to current activities, priorities, best entry points, key players, challenges and research support were asked.³⁷ Finally, one study in Mozambique used the Q methodology to gather subjective statements from stakeholders during meetings, documents and interviews related to the multisector nutrition programme.⁴⁰

Discussion

Our study explored the existing methods used to assess stakeholder perspectives in the context of child undernutrition. Findings from our review show that over two-thirds (62%) of our included studies employed mixed methods, while the remaining used qualitative methods across 14 SUN countries. The six methods used in our included studies include IDIs, FGDs, Net-Map, ONA and Q methodology. Among these methods, IDIs stand out as the most widely used (n=11), followed closely by Net-Map (n=8). Furthermore, the majority of the studies focused on government, development partners and NGOs, while only two studies involved the business network.

IDI and FGD were the most common methods employed in qualitative research. The IDI, as used in our included studies, seeks to know individual perspectives of the issue, while FGDs were employed to generate a collective view or consensus. Previous studies in India and Malawi have shown how combining IDI and FGD represents a form of qualitative method triangulation for nutrition-based intervention.^{41 42} Researchers often use this approach to enrich and deepen the data they collect.²³ However, careful consideration is necessary when combining IDI and FGD, especially when integrating the data. According to a previous study, five possibilities can emerge from the process: (1) similar interpretations; (2) similar answers but different interpretations; (3) missing information; (4) unique information and (5) different data that are not contradictory.²⁴ However, rigorous integration of IDI and FGD data can result in an enhanced description and analysis of the phenomenon under study.²³

Furthermore, the Net-Map was used among eight (n=8) of our included studies. According to the previous studies in Ghana and Ecuador, Net-Map serves as an interview-based mapping technique that integrates social network analysis, stakeholder mapping and power mapping.^43–45 Furthermore, it allows researchers to understand the stakeholder influence networks that go beyond the formal relationship that can be inferred from policy document.⁴⁴ Specifically, Net-Map is built on four questions: identifying actors involved in an issue, understanding their interconnections, assessing their level of influence and discerning their goals.^{46 47} The process can be conducted as a group exercise or through individual interviews, depending on the research goals.⁴⁶ Net-Map has proven to be an intuitive and effective method for participatory research. By using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data, it simplifies analysis compared with relying solely on qualitative interview data. However, researchers have argued that it does require researchers or facilitators to possess contextual knowledge to interpret the resulting map accurately.⁴⁸ Net-Map may also not be suitable in a setting with a high degree of hierarchy, as some stakeholders might not feel comfortable evaluating others in the networks.⁴⁸

Our findings further highlighted how ONA was used in the included studies. For instance, ONA is a research approach that seeks to understand the relational aspect of a topic, focusing on the connections between different entities rather than the attributes or variables of those entities. Similar to our study, previous literature in Hawaii USA, Australia and Canada has highlighted that ONA focuses on networks among agencies or organisations rather than individuals.^49–51 The strength of ONA lies in the visual representation of network data, making it easily understandable for a general audience.⁵² Network analysis has four characteristics: (1) focuses on patterns of linkages between actors; (2) grounding in empirical data; (3) utilisation of mathematical and computational models and (4) reliance on graphical illustrations.⁵² However, a potential limitation of network analysis is the tendency to oversimplify the complexities of network relationships in practice.⁵³ Moreover, it also risks omitting some actors in the process of network abstraction for the sake of coherence.⁵³

Q methodology is a valuable approach to extract the subjective opinions of respondents. Its main technique, Q sorting guided by the research question and coming from previous individual or group interviews, literature reviews or other documentation, involves asking respondents to rank statements in a forced normal distribution model in the form of a Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.⁵⁴ However, critics of Q methodology in a study in Thailand reported concerns about the use of preset statements, which may limit the range of respondents' opinions.⁵⁵ Additionally, the forced normal distributions may prompt respondents to choose uncertain responses in the middle of normal distributions, although the risk is lower compared with the normal Likert scale.⁵⁴

The findings from our included studies suggest that the use of existence of various assessment methods highlights the absence of a definitive gold standard for evaluating stakeholder perspectives on SUN frameworks at the national level. At the global level, the SUN movement secretariat has introduced diverse tools, such as dashboards to monitor progress indicators, for pushing the MSNP agenda in countries. However, these tools do not explain how progress occurs.⁴⁵ Therefore, process-oriented research is essential, and one approach to achieving this is through assessing stakeholder perspectives.

In conclusion, while considering the available methods for gathering stakeholder perspectives on a large scale across SUN countries, one key consideration is the integration of both qualitative and quantitative methods to ensure comparability across different contexts. Among the methods reviewed, Q methodology, Net-Map and ONA stood out as particularly relevant. Net-Map emerged as the most widely used method, particularly in studies, such as the SAIFRN, that sought to understand the power dynamics of nutrition policy across different countries, specifically in relation to funding and technical assistance. Despite its strengths, Net-Map also has its limitations, particularly because it relies on predetermined questions, which sometimes restricts novelty, and the scope of insights gathered. Q methodology, on the other hand, offers greater flexibility, as it captures stakeholders' perceptions through a scorecard system. However, drawing cross-country comparisons using Q methodology can be challenging due to variations in stakeholder responses and contextual differences.⁵⁵

These methodological limitations and contextual variations in different methods highlight the ongoing challenge of integrating stakeholder perspectives into formal assessments across all SUN countries. Addressing this challenge requires interdisciplinary collaboration beyond the health sector. A study from public administration field³⁴ underscores the need for the health sector to collaborate with social sciences to critically address the partnership in the health sector. By acknowledging these factors, the progress achieved in reducing malnutrition can be better understood and effectively scaled up.

Strengths and limitations of the review

The main strength of this study lies in its comprehensive approach to mapping out stakeholder analyses conducted in SUN countries that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. By gathering various records from different big studies, such as Stories of Change, Exemplars and SAIFRN, the study has been able to present a rich collection of methods. Furthermore, based on our knowledge, our review was the first review to synthesise methods used to gather multistakeholder perspectives in the SUN initiative. However, the study does face certain weaknesses, primarily stemming from the complex nature of assessing stakeholder perspectives, which complicates the extraction and analysis of data. Additionally, the study focused solely on peer-reviewed articles, which could potentially result in the exclusion of valuable insights from non-peer-reviewed sources or grey literature. Finally, our review only incorporates articles published in English, which potentially omits significant research in other languages.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our scoping review reveals that studies that have been published and assessed stakeholder perspectives in SUN countries exclusively concentrate on nations that have achieved significant progress in reducing malnutrition. Therefore, a future study that demonstrates less significant progress will enable researchers to enhance current partnership frameworks. There is currently no standardised method for consistently evaluating stakeholder perspectives. From the available methods, we conclude that Net-Maps were the most visible method to use on a large scale because of their approach to combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Nonetheless, it is pertinent that the SUN movement secretariat at the international level develops a recommended, interdisciplinary and contextually relevant approach for assessing stakeholder perspectives, which not only measures the accomplishments of SUN countries but also examines the processes through which these outcomes are achieved.

The lead author would like to thank Joscha Stadler from the University of Heidelberg Library for their assistance and guidance in refining the search strategy. Also, to the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) for providing the scholarship that supported the lead author's study in Germany. For the publication fee we acknowledge financial support by Heidelberg University.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Footnote

Contributors OQP conceived the idea. OQP and TA wrote the first draft of the manuscript. ALK supervised, edited and reviewed the manuscript. ALK acted as guarantor. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

References

¹ Black RE, Victora CG, Walker SP, et al. Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet 2013; 382: 427–51. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X

² United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization (WHO) & International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Levels and trends in child malnutrition: UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Group joint child malnutrition estimates: key findings of the 2023 edition, 2023. Available: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073791

³ WHO. Fact sheets - Malnutrition, 2021. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutrition

⁴ Scaling Up Nutrition. Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement. SUN Movement Strategy and Roadmap (2016-2020), 2023. Available: https://scalingupnutrition.org/resource-library/sun-operations-documents/sun-movement-strategy-and-roadmap-2016-2020

⁵ Scott N, Delport D, Hainsworth S, et al. Ending malnutrition in all its forms requires scaling up proven nutrition interventions and much more: a 129-country analysis. BMC Med 2020; 18: 356. doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01786-5

⁶ Lateef A, Beckmann D, Nabarro D, et al. Building momentum to scale up nutrition. Food Nutr Bull 2011; 32: S53–5. doi:10.1177/15648265110322S201

⁷ The Lancet. Maternal and child nutrition: executive summary of the lancet maternal and child nutrition series, 2013. Available: https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/stories/series/nutrition-eng.pdf

⁸ Nabarro D. Global child and maternal nutrition--the SUN rises. Lancet 2013; 382: 666–7. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61086-7

⁹ Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8: 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616

¹⁰ Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

¹¹ Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71

¹² Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5: 210. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

¹³ Hong QN, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract 2018; 24: 459–67. doi:10.1111/jep.12884

¹⁴ Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. EFI 2018; 34: 285–91. doi:10.3233/EFI-180221

¹⁵ Mahmood H, Suleman Y, Hazir T, et al. Overview of the infant and young child feeding policy environment in Pakistan: Federal, Sindh and Punjab context. BMC Public Health 2017; 17: 474. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4341-5

¹⁶ Puri S, Fernandez S, Puranik A, et al. Policy content and stakeholder network analysis for infant and young child feeding in India. BMC Public Health 2017; 17: 461. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4339-z

¹⁷ Conway K, Akseer N, Subedi RK, et al. Drivers of stunting reduction in Nepal: a country case study. Am J Clin Nutr 2020; 112: 844S–859S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa218

¹⁸ Brar S, Akseer N, Sall M, et al. Drivers of stunting reduction in Senegal: a country case study. Am J Clin Nutr 2020; 112: 860S–874S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa151

¹⁹ Tasic H, Akseer N, Gebreyesus SH, et al. Drivers of stunting reduction in Ethiopia: a country case study. Am J Clin Nutr 2020; 112: 875S–893S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa163

²⁰ Huicho L, Vidal-Cárdenas E, Akseer N, et al. Drivers of stunting reduction in Peru: a country case study. Am J Clin Nutr 2020; 112: 816S–829S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa164

²¹ Wigle JM, Akseer N, Mogilevskii R, et al. Drivers of stunting reduction in the Kyrgyz Republic: A country case study. Am J Clin Nutr 2020; 112: 830S–843S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa120

²² Rasheed S, Roy SK, Das S, et al. Policy content and stakeholder network analysis for infant and young child feeding in Bangladesh. BMC Public Health 2017; 17: 402. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4338-0

²³ Lambert SD, Loiselle CG. Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. J Adv Nurs 2008; 62: 228–37. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04559.x

²⁴ Sands RG, Roer-Strier D. Using data triangulation of mother and daughter interviews to enhance research about families. Qual Soc Work 2006; 5: 237–60. doi:10.1177/1473325006064260

²⁵ Karn S, Devkota MD, Uddin S, et al. Policy content and stakeholder network analysis for infant and young child feeding in Nepal. BMC Public Health 2017; 17: 421. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4340-6

²⁶ Godakandage SSP, Senarath U, Jayawickrama HS, et al. Policy and stakeholder analysis of infant and young child feeding programmes in Sri Lanka. BMC Public Health 2017; 17: 522. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4342-4

²⁷ Harris J. Advocacy coalitions and the transfer of nutrition policy to Zambia. Health Policy Plan 2019; 34: 207–15. doi:10.1093/heapol/czz024

²⁸ Aryeetey R, Atuobi-Yeboah A, Billings L, et al. Stories of change in nutrition in Ghana: a focus on stunting and anemia among children under-five years (2009–2018). Food Sec 2022; 14: 355–79. doi:10.1007/s12571-021-01232-1

²⁹ Nisbett N, Davis P, Yosef S, et al. Bangladesh’s story of change in nutrition: Strong improvements in basic and underlying determinants with an unfinished agenda for direct community level support. Glob Food Sec 2017; 13: 21–9. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.005

³⁰ Adeyemi O, van den Bold M, Nisbett N, et al. Changes in Nigeria’s enabling environment for nutrition from 2008 to 2019 and challenges for reducing malnutrition. Food Secur 2023; 15: 343–61. doi:10.1007/s12571-022-01328-2

³¹ Turowska Z, Buttarelli E, Sombié I, et al. Stories of change in nutrition in Burkina Faso 1992-2018: a macro-level perspective. Food Secur 2023; 15: 535–54. doi:10.1007/s12571-022-01331-7

³² Kampman H, Zongrone A, Rawat R, et al. How Senegal created an enabling environment for nutrition: A story of change. Glob Food Sec 2017; 13: 57–65. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.02.005

³³ Harris J, Drimie S, Roopnaraine T, et al. From coherence towards commitment: Changes and challenges in Zambia’s nutrition policy environment. Glob Food Sec 2017; 13: 49–56. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.02.006

³⁴ Fox A, Law JR, Baker K. The case for metagovernance: The promises and pitfalls of multisectoral nutrition service delivery structures in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Public Admin & Development 2022; 42: 128–41. doi:10.1002/pad.1974

³⁵ Bach A, Gregor E, Sridhar S, et al. Multisectoral integration of nutrition, health, and agriculture: implementation lessons from Ethiopia. Food Nutr Bull 2020; 41: 275–92. doi:10.1177/0379572119895097

³⁶ Kennedy E, Tessema M, Hailu T, et al. Multisector nutrition program governance and implementation in ethiopia: opportunities and challenges. Food Nutr Bull 2015; 36: 534–48. doi:10.1177/0379572115611768

³⁷ Galaurchi A, Chatio ST, Beeri P, et al. Stakeholder perspectives on barriers and facilitators on the implementation of the 1000 days plus nutrition policy activities in Ghana. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 5317. doi:10.3390/ijerph18105317

³⁸ Gaihre S, Kyle J, Semple S, et al. Bridging barriers to advance multisector approaches to improve food security, nutrition and population health in Nepal: transdisciplinary perspectives. BMC Public Health 2019; 19: 961. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7204-4

³⁹ Ruducha J, Bhatia A, Mann C, et al. Multisectoral nutrition planning in Nepal: Evidence from an organizational network analysis. Matern Child Nutr 2022; 18 Suppl 1: e13112. doi:10.1111/mcn.13112

⁴⁰ Michaud-Létourneau I, Pelletier DL. Perspectives on the coordination of multisectoral nutrition in Mozambique and an emerging framework. Food Policy 2017; 70: 84–97. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.07.001

⁴¹ Bandewar SS, Bhargava M, Pisal H, et al. Qualitative study of acceptability, benefits, and feasibility of a food-based intervention among participants and stakeholders of the rations trial [ Nutrition ]. 2025. doi:10.1101/2025.01.10.25320312

⁴² Daniel AI, van den Heuvel M, Gladstone M, et al. A mixed methods feasibility study of the Kusamala Program at a nutritional rehabilitation unit in Malawi. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2018; 4: 151. doi:10.1186/s40814-018-0347-8

⁴³ Boadi P, Marquis G, Aryeetey R, et al. A net-map analysis of stakeholder connections and influence in agriculture-for-nutrition policymaking in Ghana. AJFAND 2023; 23: 22172–99. doi:10.18697/ajfand.116.22665

⁴⁴ Pilamala Rosales A, Linnemann AR, Luning PA. A net-map analysis to understand the roles and influence of stakeholders in street food safety - A study in Ecuador. Food Control 2023; 154: 109966. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109966

⁴⁵ Gillespie S, van den Bold M. Stories of change in nutrition: a tool pool. SSRN Journal 2015. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2741912

⁴⁶ Leimkühler M, Specht K, Schröter B, et al. Using the Net-Map tool to analyze stakeholder networks in the city region food systems of seven European cities. Front Sustain Food Syst 2024; 8: 1315399. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2024.1315399

⁴⁷ Schiffer E. Net-map Toolbox: Influence Mapping of Social Networks, 2007. Available: https://netmap.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/net-map-manual-long1.pdf

⁴⁸ Schröter B, Sattler C, Graef F, et al. Strengths and weaknesses of the Net-Map tool for participatory social network analysis in resource management: Experience from case studies conducted on four continents. Methodological Innovations 2018; 11. doi:10.1177/2059799118787754

⁴⁹ Buchthal OV, Maddock JE. Mapping the possibilities: using network analysis to identify opportunities for building nutrition partnerships within diverse low-income communities. J Nutr Educ Behav 2015; 47: 300–7. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2015.03.002

⁵⁰ Jancey J, Vidler A-C, Leavy JE, et al. Understanding Prevention Networks in a Local Government Area: Insights From a Social Network Analysis Among Western Australian Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Prevention Programs. Health Promot Pract 2023; 24: 103–10. doi:10.1177/15248399211050661

⁵¹ Storey KE, Stearns JA, McLeod N, et al. A social network analysis of interactions about physical activity and nutrition among APPLE schools staff. SSM Popul Health 2021; 14: 100763. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100763

⁵² Luke DA, Harris JK. Network analysis in public health: history, methods, and applications. Annu Rev Public Health 2007; 28: 69–93. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144132

⁵³ Marshall DJ, Staeheli L. Mapping civil society with social network analysis: Methodological possibilities and limitations. Geoforum 2015; 61: 56–66. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.02.015

⁵⁴ Cross RM. Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health Educ Res 2005; 20: 206–13. doi:10.1093/her/cyg121

⁵⁵ Thepha T, Marais D, Bell J, et al. Q-methodology identifies distinctive viewpoints of the facilitators and barriers to six-month exclusive breastfeeding in Northeast Thailand. Nutr Health 2022; 28: 219–27. doi:10.1177/02601060211011823