ArticleNutrients2026
National and Sub-National Delivery of Balanced Energy and Protein (BEP) Supplements to Pregnant and Lactating Women in LMICs: Lessons from Multi-Country Implementation Case Studies.
Article in Nutrients, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The World Health Organization recommends the use of balanced energy protein (BEP) supplements during pregnancy in settings with a ≥ 20% prevalence of underweight women of reproductive age to reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes. Several countries are implementing BEP supplementation in varied formats. However, the implementation and monitoring of outcomes remain poor across countries. This qualitative study explores the experiences, opportunities, and challenges related to implementing national and sub-national BEP supplementation programs in nine countries (12 countries originally invited) to inform best practices.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 personnel involved in its implementation in Haiti, India, Malawi, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Senegal, and Sri Lanka between October 2024 and March 2025. The interviewees in each country were predominantly implementation experts but also government officials involved in the provision of BEP supplementation. The transcripts were analyzed thematically, focusing on acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, and sustainability of outcomes.
resultsIn non-humanitarian settings (five countries), BEP supplementation was commonly integrated into the governmental health system or social protection programs. However, humanitarian contexts (four countries) often relied on partner-led (e.g., UN organizations) implementation. Clear operational protocols, including behavioral change communication strategies, facilitated the implementation. Community-based organization partnerships strengthened adherence; however, implementation costs, stock shortages, and geographic inequities in coverage varied and were limiting factors in scale-up, primarily in humanitarian contexts.
conclusionIn sum, two distinct implementation pathways emerged: government-led models characterized by policy integration, national ownership, and more stable systems, and humanitarian or donor-led models shaped by crisis response, external dependency, and non-committal challenges. Successful implementation of BEP supplements depends on the presence of effective policies, context-adapted design, integration into health systems, consistent funding, and effective monitoring. There is a need for implementation research to generate evidence on best practices when implementing BEP supplementation programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.