Murshed E Jahan 2011.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods |
Study design: PCS How were missing data handled? No missing data reported by study authors. Randomisation ratio: N/A Recruitment method: NR Sample size justification and outcome used: NR Sampling method: stratified random sampling. Respondents were selected in such a way that farmers of different wealth ranks were included by means of a participatory wealth ranking exercise undertaken in the study sites. The participants identified land holding as the proxy measure of wealth for ranking the HHs. All HHs were ranked based on their access to different natural resources. Study aim or objective: to assess the farm productivity, profitability, efficiency and HH nutrition of participants in integrated aquaculture‐agriculture training (with and without a small financial grant) and of a group of control farmers. Study period: 3 years; 2002/2003 to 2005/2006 Unit of allocation or exposure: individuals (farmers) |
|
Participants |
Baseline characteristics Intervention or exposure group:
Control group:
Overall: NR Inclusion criteria: farmers from 4 districts (Mymensingh, Comilla, Magura and Bogra). No other criteria reported. Exclusion criteria: farmers who had previously received training in aquaculture production or integrated aquaculture‐agriculture and those who did not agree to participate were excluded from the pool. Pretreatment: baseline characteristics were not assessed for the control group; table 2 presented characteristics of both groups assessed in 2006, which showed no differences between them. At baseline the table showed that there was no significant difference between different groups of farmers included in the study at the time of selection in terms of farm area, i.e. number of hectares owned (land holding was proxy measure for wealth). Attrition per relevant group: attrition NR. Description of subgroups measured and reported: none Total number completed and analysed per relevant group: intervention (project farmers) 260 (grant farmer: 127; non‐grant farmers: 133); control farmers 126 Total number enrolled per relevant group: intervention (project farmers) 260 (grant farmer: 127; non‐grant farmers: 133); control farmers = 126 Total number randomised per relevant group: N/A |
|
Interventions |
Intervention characteristics Intervention or exposure group: integrated agriculture‐aquaculture intervention
Control group: no intervention |
|
Outcomes | Total and per capita HH food consumption – total/for individual foods | |
Identification |
Sponsorship source: USAID; World Fish Center Country: Bangladesh Setting: small‐scale farms in 4 Bangladesh districts Author's name: Khondker Murshed‐E‐Jahan Email: k.jahan@cgiar.org; d.pemsl@cgiar.org Declarations of interest: NR Study or programme name and acronym: Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Project (DSAP) Type of record: journal article |
|
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (Selection bias) | High risk | CBA; no randomisation done. |
Allocation concealment (Selection bias) | High risk | CBA; no allocation concealment done. |
Baseline characteristics similar (Selection bias) | Unclear risk | Study authors reported similar farm areas and access to social capital for both groups at baseline; however, other baseline characteristics were NR. |
Baseline outcome measurements similar (Selection bias) | Unclear risk | No baseline measurements reported. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (Performance bias) | Low risk | No blinding but this was unlikely to have influenced participant or personnel behaviour. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (Detection bias) | High risk | There was no blinding. Measures were based on self‐report, and lack of blinding could have influenced reporting. |
Protection against contamination (Performance bias) | Unclear risk | Control farmers were selected from the same districts as project farmers but it was not clear what their distance was from project farmers and whether any of these started any integrated aquaculture‐agriculture projects by themselves. |
Incomplete outcome data (Attrition bias) | Low risk | All farmers completed the study; there were no missing data. |
Selective outcome reporting (Reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No protocol available. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Misclassification bias: unlikely. NGO assigned farmers to intervention. Measurement bias: low risk. HHs completed daily food consumption diary. Seasonality bias: low risk. |