How do nutrition professionals working in low‐income countries perceive and prioritize actions to prevent wasting? A mixed‐methods study

Despite a shared commitment to achieving global nutrition targets, development and emergency‐humanitarian actors tend to prioritize different nutrition outcomes and actions. New approaches are needed to bridge the divide between these communities and to strengthen the overall evidence base for prevention of wasting. To better understand how these different groups perceive and prioritize actions for wasting prevention, key informant interviews (n = 21) were conducted, and an online survey was fielded among nutrition professionals working in low‐income countries (n = 107). Additionally, nutrition policy and strategy documents for select global and country institutions (n = 12) were analysed to identify interventions and approaches for addressing different forms of undernutrition. The findings of this study suggest that at both global and country levels, development actors tend to prioritize stunting prevention, and emergency‐humanitarian actors tend to prioritize treatment of acute malnutrition. It was less common for wasting prevention to be mentioned as an explicit priority. Many interventions were perceived by respondents to influence both stunting and wasting despite limited published evidence of effectiveness on wasting for water, sanitation and hygiene, growth monitoring and promotion, breastfeeding promotion and micronutrient supplementation. To help unify the nutrition community around prevention of wasting, the discourse about priority interventions should shift from ‘stunting versus wasting’ and ‘prevention versus treatment’ to a life‐course framing around child survival, growth and development. Respondents identified a need for more programme and research funding that prioritizes both wasting and stunting as outcomes. They also suggest leveraging existing national coordination bodies that bring development and emergency‐humanitarian partners together.