Frontiers in Public Health (Nov 2023)

Comparison of high and low stunting reduction groups using IFE-EFE matrix analysis in Central Java Province, Indonesia

  • Mohamad Samsudin,
  • Pramesthi Widya Hapsari,
  • Martha Irene Kartasurya,
  • Ahmad Syauqy,
  • Muflihah Isnawati,
  • Erna Kusuma Wati,
  • Yusi Dwi Nurcahyani,
  • Noviati Fuada,
  • Suyatno Suyatno,
  • Julian Dewantiningrum,
  • Sunarto Sunarto,
  • Nuryanto Nuryanto

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1191473
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundThe results of the 2021 Indonesian Nutritional Status Study (Studi Status Gizi Indonesia, SSGI) showed a 6.8% declining prevalence of stunting in Central Java from 2019 to 2021. However, the prevalence decreases in the regency level of Central Java varied from 0.1 to 20.3%. This study aimed to analyze the external and internal factors that influenced the stunting reduction prevalence in Central Java Province, Indonesia.MethodsThis qualitative study was conducted over 2 months, from April to May 2022. In-depth interviews were used to explore the supporting factors (external, internal, and strategies) and the challenges (internal, external, and solutions) in implementing stunting reduction acceleration programs. The supporting factors and challenges were compared between the groups with high Gro, Sra, Kla, and Pek (GSKP) and low Sur, Mag, Teg, and Pat (SMTP) reduction prevalence. Data were analyzed using internal factor evaluation (IFE) and external factor evaluation (EFE).ResultsIn quadrant II, the high-reduction group (GSKP) had IFE and EFE scores of 2.61 and 2.76, respectively. In quadrant IV, the low-reduction group (SMTP) had IFE and EFE scores of 1.86 and 1.62, respectively. The high-reduction group (GSKP) was better than the low-reduction group (SMTP) in using external opportunities and internal strengths by avoiding external threats and minimizing the weakness in the stunting reduction acceleration program in each area. The existence of superior programs and innovations were the strengths that differentiated the high and low groups. Conversely, the low-stunting reduction group struggled to overcome major challenges, especially lacking leadership capacity. From the outside, lack of program sustainability at the village level and budget restraint were the threats found in both groups.ConclusionCompared with the low-stunting reduction group, the high group could maximize their strengths and use the opportunities to implement stunting reduction programs.

Keywords