19
WHO e-Library of Evidence for Nutrition Actions: Results of the 2014 user survey
WHO e-Library of Evidence for Nutrition Actions:
Results of the 2014 user survey
This report was produced by the Nutrition Policy and Scientific Advice Unit of the Department of
Nutrition for Health and Development at the World Health Organization. December 2015.
Nutrition Policy and Scientific Advice Unit
Department of Nutrition for Health and Development
World Health Organization
20, Avenue Appia,
CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
Fax: +41 22 791 4156
e-mail: [email protected]
www.who.int/nutrition
1
Summary
The WHO e-Library of Evidence for Nutrition Actions (eLENA) provides a single point of reference for
the latest WHO nutrition guidelines, recommendations and related information. Since the launch of
eLENA in 2011, improvements have been made in the way information is organized, structured and
presented. In order to gather feedback and continue improving the user experience, an online
survey was conducted in 2014. Ninety-nine responses were received from individuals with a wide
range of professional backgrounds, including those employed by UN organizations, government
agencies and academic institutions. About 25% of respondents self-identified as new users.
Respondents came from 57 countries in all WHO regions, with the largest proportion in the African
Region and the Region of the Americas.
The vast majority of users first learned of eLENA through a WHO medium such as the website or the
electronic newsletter of the Department of Nutrition for Health and Development (NHD).
Most respondents reported using eLENA less frequently than once per month. The primary purpose
was to identify nutrition interventions and to find supporting evidence, related WHO guidance and
links to implementation information in the WHO Global database on the Implementation of
Nutrition Action (GINA). One third of all respondents indicated they had used or were using eLENA at
various stages of their engagement in the policy development and implementation process.
Overall, respondents found the eLENA website to be easy to navigate, with the structure of content
well-organized and amenable to finding items of interest quickly. Most respondents indicated that
the detail and scope of content, as well as the technical level at which it was presented, were “just
right”. There were differing opinions as to whether or not additional information should be included
in the background text provided for each intervention, however, few concrete examples for
improvement were suggested. A substantial number of respondents expressed frustration at not
being able to access the full content of all systematic reviews to which eLENA provides links, though
the majority still found the inclusion of reviews with restricted access to be helpful in understanding
and evaluating interventions. Most respondents also found helpful the additional features of
biological, behavioural and contextual rationale statements (BBCs), commentaries and links to GINA.
Suggestions for strengthening eLENA included: improving the organization of content, making non-
English language versions of eLENA available and enabling search functionality limited to eLENA
content only.
Overall, respondents ranked eLENA highly on ease of use (7.9)1 as well as quality of content (8.2) and
were likely to use eLENA again as well as to recommend it to colleagues and others.
Several areas for potential follow-up were identified, including:
improving awareness of eLENA, particularly through means other than WHO media;
exploring ways to encourage users to visit and/or use eLENA more frequently;
improving accessibility to content (e.g. increasing prominence of non-English versions of eLENA and
identifying ways to improve content download times); and
exploring ways to improve the background materials provided for interventions.
1 On a scale of 1-10 (1 = lowest; 10 = highest )
2
Figure 1. Sector of employment (99 responses)
Categories of survey questions
1. User characteristics (8 questions)
2. General usage information (3 questions)
3. How do you use eLENA? (1 question)
4. eLENA in programme development and the
policy process (8 questions)
5. Navigating the eLENA website (10 questions)
6. Content of intervention webpages (13-15
questions)
7. Additional comments (6-7 questions)
Introduction
The WHO e-Library of Evidence for Nutrition Actions (eLENA) is a single point of reference for the
latest WHO nutrition guidelines, recommendations and related information. Since its launch in 2011,
improvements have been made in the way
information is organized, structured and
presented. In order to gather feedback and
continue improving the user experience, a
survey was conducted among eLENA users
from 30 July to 15 September 2014. The survey
included up to 52 questions covering the use of
eLENA information in policy development and
implementation, and the functionality and
usability of the website.
Respondents were required to provide
information on user characteristics and the
frequency of using eLENA; all other questions
were optional. As a result the total number of
responses received varied from question to
question.
Participation in the survey was open to all, however, feedback from staff in WHO country offices as
well as their national nutrition counterparts was considered particularly relevant. Invitations to
participate in the user survey were sent via the electronic newsletter of the WHO Department of
Nutrition for Health and Development (NHD) as well as through targeted emails to WHO staff in
regional and country offices. Links to the survey were also prominently displayed on all eLENA
webpages.
Findings
Complete responses2 were received from 99 users.
1. User characteristics
Respondents came from a wide variety of
professions. The academic/research sector had
the largest representation, followed by UN
organizations and government agencies (Figure
1). The primary professional roles of respondents
were the provision of technical guidance, academic and research activities, and policy/programme
development and programme management (Figure 2).
2 “Complete” implies provision of information on user characteristics and frequency of using eLENA, at a minimum.
27
21 8
31
4 8 UN organizationGovernmentNon-governmental organizationAcademic/researchPrivate sectorOther
3
25
21 14
14
12
13 Africa
Americas
Eastern Mediterranean
Europe
South-East Asia
Western Pacific
Figure 2. Primary professional roles of respondents (99 respondents; users allowed to select up to three roles)
Responses were received from
individuals in 57 countries (Annex)
covering all WHO regions. Nearly half
of the respondents were from the
African Region and the Region of the
Americas (Figure 3). Countries with
the highest numbers of respondents
included the United States of America
(9), India (5), Australia (4) and the
Philippines (4).
2. General usage patterns
The vast majority of respondents (82%) reported having first learned of eLENA through a WHO-
related channel, for example the official eLENA launch announcement, the NHD newsletter, WHO
website or other WHO publication (Figure 4). Personal or professional referrals also appeared to be
an important route for creating awareness of eLENA. No respondent credited a general internet
search or non-WHO publication as being the source for first learning of eLENA.
Figure 4. How respondents first learned of eLENA (99 responses)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other
Student
Academics/research
Provision of technical guidance
Setting nutrition standards
Programme funding
Policy/programme evaluation
Policy/programme monitoring
Programme management
Policy/programme development
24
33
19
14
5 4
Official eLENA launch announcement
WHO website
WHO nutrition department newsletter
Google or other internet browser search (0)
Personal or professional referral
WHO publication
Other publication (0)
Part of academic coursework (0)
Other
Figure 3. Geographic distribution of respondents (99 responses)
4
Few respondents (11%) reported using eLENA more frequently than once per month (Figure 5).
Slightly more than one quarter of respondents were new users. The self-assessment of experience in
using eLENA revealed that 59% of respondents considered themselves to be at least somewhat
experienced, 35% had very little to no experience and 6% were not sure.3
Figure 5. Frequency of use (99 responses)
Most respondents indicated that they primarily used eLENA for locating WHO guidelines,
recommendations and other guidance (Figure 6). Other common uses include identifying
interventions to support policy development and systematic reviews that provide the evidence base
for particular nutrition interventions. A substantial number of users also use eLENA to find new
and/or innovative nutrition interventions.
3 Most questions included an option to answer “I don't know”. The majority of such answers were provided by those who
self-identified as new users. The total number of “I don't know” answers and the number of those that were provided by
respondents who reported using eLENA less frequently than once a month (including those self-identifying as new users),
are generally reported at the bottom of most figures. Whenever a significant number of more experienced users answered
“I don't know” to a question, it was noted in the text as a basis for inferences about user behaviour and/or design features
of the website.
3 8
22
20 21
25
Every day
Every week
Every month
Less than once a month
Only when I receive an announcement that the web site has been updated
I am a new user
0 20 40 60
Identify interventions to be used in programmes
Identify interventions to support policy development
Locate WHO guidelines, recommendations and other guidance
Identify systematic reviews for nutrition interventions
Locate evidence for nutrition actions or polices on GINA
Discover new and/or innovative nutrition interventions
Incorporate eLENA into academic curriculum/coursework*
Referenced as part of academic coursework**
For general information purposes only
Other
* Question directed to professors;
** Question directed to students
Figure 6. How information found in eLENA is used (73 respondents; users allowed to select all that apply)
5
3. Use of eLENA in policy development and implementation
To gain insight into how eLENA has been used in policy development and implementation, the
survey included a series of relevant, detailed questions beginning with “Have you ever used or are
you currently using eLENA to support the design or implementation of programmes or during other
stages of the policy cycle?” Out of 73 respondents, 33% indicated “yes”, 48% “hadn’t yet but
planned to” and 16% indicated “no”. Two respondents indicated that they had originally considered
using eLENA but ultimately decided not to; one of those explained feeling “more comfortable using
my own experiences and knowledge base”.
A number of respondents including ministry of health officials, WHO staff and others providing
technical guidance on policy and programming provided specific examples of policies, programmes
and other activities that have benefited from the use of eLENA, including:
National nutrition policy of Comoros, with a focus on pregnant women and children under 5 years of age
3rd
European Food and Nutrition Action Plan 2015-2020 (WHO Regional Office for Europe)
National nutrition policy of Guinea along with associated strategy documents
National nutrition policies of several countries in the Asia-Pacific region
Action plan targeting micronutrient deficiencies developed by the Burkina Faso Ministry of Health
Action Plan to Reduce the Double Burden of Malnutrition in the WHO Western Pacific Region and facilitation of related national workshops
Review of national strategies and/or plans of action related to nutrition in countries in the WHO Western Pacific Region
Prioritization of nutrition interventions to be scaled up, development of nutrition policy briefs and adaptation of the WHO micronutrient guidelines in Ghana
Dietary guidelines in China
Adaptation of dietary guidelines for the prevention and management of noncommunicable diseases in Uganda
Coordination of a school health programme to promote healthy lifestyles among children and adolescents in Uganda
2013-2015 National Nutrition Programme, the National Micronutrient Guideline and the Acute Malnutrition Management Guideline in Ethiopia
Country implementation plan for the Accelerating Nutrition Improvements (ANI) project in Ethiopia
National flour and oil fortification programmes in Egypt to combat iron deficiency anaemia and vitamin A deficiency, respectively, among children and pregnant and lactating women
Nutrition policies and programmes in Mali, including the Multisectoral Action Plan for Nutrition.
6
The following unspecified activities targeting the indicated areas of nutrition were also cited by respondents as having benefited from information obtained from eLENA:
Young child undernutrition, particularly iron deficiency anaemia, and provision of multiple micronutrient powders to young children in Indonesia
Multiple micronutrient supplementation, periconceptional folic acid supplementation and iron and folic acid supplementation in children of school age in Sri Lanka
Multiple micronutrient powders in children 6-23 months, iron and folic acid supplementation, salt iodization and fortification in the United States of America
Multiple nutrition areas relevant to women of reproductive age, children and other vulnerable populations in Pakistan
Iron supplementation using micronutrient powders in Namibia.
To develop a better understanding of
how the content found in eLENA is used
towards developing and implementing
policies and/or programmes, the survey
included questions regarding the specific
types of eLENA content used and at
which stage(s) of the process it was used.
Results show that the most utilized
sections of eLENA are those that provide
nutrition guidance (WHO documents),
the evidence base for nutrition
interventions in the form of systematic
reviews (Evidence) and links to
information on implementation of interventions in the WHO Global database on the Implementation
of Nutrition Action (GINA) (Figure 7). Although biological, behavioural and contextual rationale
statements (BBCs) and commentaries appear to be used less frequently, responses to a later
question (Figure 25) indicate that users found these documents generally helpful in understanding
and evaluating interventions, though for what precise purpose is unclear.
eLENA appears to be used widely throughout the policy development and implementation process
with substantial use in the early stages, particularly in analysis, research and review of policy options
and policy formulation, but also in the revision and/or updating of existing policies (Figure 8).
0 5 10 15 20 25
Other
Related links
Links to GINA information
BBCs and/or commentaries
Evidence
WHO documents
Narrative text
Figure 7. eLENA content used in the policy development process (48 responses; users allowed to select all that apply)
7
4. Navigating the eLENA website
The majority of respondents indicated that navigating
the eLENA website was easy; only three indicated that
it was not (Figure 9).
Most respondents indicated that the instructions for navigating and using eLENA provided on the
How to use eLENA webpage were at least somewhat helpful (Figure 10). Out of the 23 respondents
indicating they had not used this feature, 14 self-identified as new users suggesting that the other 9,
who had at least some experience using eLENA, either felt confident in using eLENA such that they
don't need to consult the How to use eLENA page or weren’t aware of it.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Other
Revising or updating an existing policy
Follow-up/evaluation
Revising or updating an existing programme
Programme evaluation
Designing programme
Pre-planning for programme development
Policy formulation
Review of policy options
Agenda setting
Analysis/research
Identification of problem
0 10 20 30 40
Not easy at all
Not easy
Somewhat easy
Easy
Very easy
Figure 9. Navigating eLENA (88 responses)
0 10 20 30 40
I haven't used this feature
Not helpful at all
Not helpful
Somewhat helpful
Helpful
Very helpful
Figure 10. Utility of the How to use eLENA webpage (86 responses)
18 “I don’t know” responses, of which 16 were from
those using eLENA less frequently than once per month
Figure 8. Use of eLENA at various stages of the policy development process (81 respondents ; users allowed to select all that apply)
8
While most respondents indicated they had no difficulties in using the website, some noted the
following:
The content is not available in non-English languages (French was specified).
There are delays in downloading of the content as a result of low bandwidth of internet providers on the user side.
The content of interest often does not come up in general web searches.
The lack of a search function restricted only to content in eLENA makes identifying interventions and other content more cumbersome.
Having interventions listed in more than one category (i.e. Health conditions, Life course, etc.) is redundant; it would be helpful to have all interventions available in one table.
Among the possible ways of finding nutrition interventions, the A-Z listing was cited as being the
most used, followed by the Nutrients and Health conditions groupings (Figure 11). A significant
number of users also appear to search for items in eLENA by using the global search function on the
WHO website.
All approaches to grouping interventions appeared to be useful to users, with Nutrients being the
most helpful (58 “Very helpful” and “Helpful” responses), followed by the A-Z listing and Health
conditions (54 responses each) (Figure 12).
Figure 11. How interventions are found in eLENA (90 respondents; users allowed to select all that apply)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other
I haven’t used eLENA enough to be able to answer
Searching the WHO website
Interventions by Category
Intervention type
Nutrients
Life course
Health conditions
A-Z listing
9
Nearly all respondents indicated that they were able to find specific content with ease (Figure 13).
Two respondents indicated that they were unable to find what they were looking for, though it is not
clear if they were unable to find the content or if the
content was not in eLENA at the time they searched
for it. Twelve respondents indicated they had not
yet looked for anything specific.
Most users found that the process of accessing the most
recently-added interventions through the links on the
home page was clear (Figure 14). Twenty respondents
indicated they had not accessed new nutrition
interventions from the home page. All of whom
reported using eLENA less frequently than once per
month, including 12 self-identified new users.
Interventions in eLENA are grouped into one of three categories4 according to the level of guidance
and supporting evidence with which they are associated. Most respondents indicated that the
rationale for this grouping was clear and that the information provided by categorization was helpful
4 Category 1: interventions for which guidelines have been recently approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee
(GRC). Category 1 interventions also include those supported by recommendations and other forms of guidance that have been adopted or endorsed by the World Health Assembly. Category 2: interventions for which systematic review(s) have been conducted but no recent guidelines are yet available that have been approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee. Category 3: interventions for which available evidence is limited and systematic reviews have not yet been conducted.
05
10152025303540
Very helpful
Helpful
Somewhat helpful
Not helpful
Not helpful at all
0 10 20 30 40
I couldn’t find it
Not easy at all
Not easy
Somewhat easy
Easy
Very easy
Figure 12. Grouping of interventions into categories (90 responses)
Figure 13. Finding specific content (84 responses)
0 10 20 30 40
Not clear at all
Not clear
Somewhat clear
Clear
Very clear
Figure 14. Ease of locating newest interventions (84 responses)
10
in understanding and evaluating the interventions (Figures 15 and 16). In addition, 24 respondents
indicated that they had not looked at the category information, most of whom reported using eLENA
less frequently than once per month, suggesting that these respondents may not have been aware
of this feature.
5. eLENA content
Most respondents (77%) felt that the level of the technical language used for the various types of
content in eLENA was “just right” (78 total responses). Nine expressed that it was too technical and
two indicated that it was not technical enough. Of the additional nine respondents who were not
sure, all reported using eLENA less frequently than once per month.
Narrative text: Nearly three-quarters (73%) of respondents indicated that the level of detail and
scope of the narrative text provided on each intervention page was “just right”, while 8% felt there
was not enough information provided (73 total responses). No respondent indicated that there was
too much information. Fourteen answered “I don’t know”, all of whom reported using eLENA less
frequently than once per month. Just under half (45%) of respondents indicated that the narrative
text did not lack information that would be helpful in understanding and evaluating the
interventions, 21% indicated that information was lacking and 34% did not know (76 total responses).
Of the 26 who responded “I don’t know”, 21 reported using eLENA less frequently than once per
month, suggesting that a small number of experienced eLENA users were unsure about whether
and/or how the narrative text could be improved.
Systematic reviews: The majority of systematic reviews included in the Evidence section on
intervention pages in eLENA are open-access. Just over half of respondents described the inability to
access the full text of systematic reviews without open-access as at least somewhat frustrating, and
four described it as very frustrating (Figure 17). Several also indicated they had access to the full text
of systematic reviews through institutional accounts or the WHO HINARI Access to Research in
Health Programme.
0 10 20 30 40
Not helpful at all
Not helpful
Somewhat helpful
Helpful
Very helpful
0 10 20 30
Not clear at all
Not clear
Somewhat clear
Clear
Very clear
Figure 16. Utility of assigning categories to interventions (83 responses)
Figure 15. Rationale for assigning categories to interventions (82 responses)
23 “I don’t know” responses, of which 21 were
from those using eLENA less frequently than
once per month
11
17 “I don’t know” responses, of which 14 were from
those using eLENA less frequently than once per month
14 “I don’t know” responses, of which 14 were from those
using eLENA less frequently than once per month
13 “I don’t know” responses, of which 12 were from those
using eLENA less frequently than once per month
Most respondents indicated that the inclusion of
systematic reviews that are not open-access was still
at least somewhat helpful in understanding and
evaluating interventions (Figure 18).
WHO recommendations: Every intervention page contains a WHO recommendations box containing
WHO recommendations if available. Most respondents found this feature both easy to identify and
helpful in understanding and evaluating interventions (Figures 19 and 20). One respondent indicated
that he/she was unable to locate the recommendations.
0 10 20 30 40
I couldn't find them
Not easy at all
Not easy at all
Somewhat easy
Easy
Very easy
0 10 20 30
Not helpful at all
Not helpful
Somewhat helpful
Helpful
Very helpful
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
I have access to systematic reviews via HINARI
I have academic or professional access
Not frustrating at all
Not frustrating
Somewhat frustrating
Frustrating
Very frustrating
Figure 17. Inability to access the full text of all systematic reviews in eLENA (81 responses)
Figure 18. Utility of including systematic reviews with restricted access (81 responses)
Figure 19. Ease of locating WHO recommendations (69 responses)
Figure 20. Utility of including WHO recommendations (74 responses)
0 10 20 30 40
Not helpful at all
Not helpful
Somewhat helpful
Helpful
Very helpful
17 “I don’t know” responses, of which 14 were from those
using eLENA less frequently than once per month
12
13 “I don’t know” responses, of which 12 were from
those using eLENA less frequently than once per month
A significant number of respondents used eLENA both to identify nutrition-relevant WHO
recommendations and to access nutrition-relevant WHO guidelines and guidance documents, rather
than searching for them within original WHO guideline and guidance documents or searching the
WHO website or nutrition department home page (Figures 21 and 22).
WHO documents: In the WHO documents section on each intervention page, WHO guidance is
grouped under the subheadings of GRC-approved guidelines and Other guidance documents based
on whether or not the guidance is in the
form of a guideline recently approved by the
WHO Guidelines Review Committee (GRC).
Most respondents indicated that the
rationale for this grouping was clear (Figure
23).
Other features: For most interventions, information on implementation is provided via a link to GINA.
Most respondents indicated having used this feature, though a significant number had never used it
(Figure 24). Fifteen respondents were unaware of this feature, 14 of whom reported using eLENA
less frequently than once per month.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
I wasn't aware of this feature
Never
Occasionally
Sometimes
Frequently
For every intervention viewed
0 5 10 15 20 25
Never
Occasionally
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
0 10 20 30
Never
Occasionally
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
Figure 21. Use of eLENA to identify recommendations (61 responses)
Figure 22. Use of eLENA to identify guidelines and guidance documents (61 responses)
0 10 20 30 40
Not clear at all
Not clear
Somewhat clear
Clear
Very clear
Figure 23. Rationale for grouping guidance documents (73 responses)
Figure 24. Use of link to relevant information on GINA (75 responses)
13
BBCs: 21 “I don’t know” responses, of which 18 were from those using eLENA less frequently than once per month
Commentaries: 14 “I don’t know” responses, of which 14 were from those using eLENA less frequently than once per month
Links to GINA: 19 “I don’t know” responses, of which 18 were from those using eLENA less frequently than once per month
In addition to GINA links, BBCs and commentaries are included on some intervention pages for
which WHO guidelines are not available. Most respondents found these to be at least somewhat
helpful (Figure 25) in understanding and evaluating interventions.
6. Overall impressions
On a scale of 1-10, respondents gave eLENA high marks overall in terms of ease of use (average 7.9)
and quality of content (average 8.2) (Figures 26 and 27).
Of the 13 respondents who self-identified as new users, ten indicated that they would be likely or
very likely to use eLENA again and three were not sure. None indicated they would be unlikely to use
eLENA again.
Respondents were divided on their impressions regarding awareness of eLENA as a source of
information for nutrition interventions among those involved in the field of nutrition. Most thought
it was at least somewhat high, but a significant number believed it to be low (Figure 28).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Not helpful at all
Not helpful
Somewhat helpful
Helpful
Very helpful
BBC
Commentary
Link to GINA
Figure 25. Utility of BBCs, commentaries and links to GINA (73-74 responses)
Figure 26. Ease of use (70 responses) Figure 27. Quality of content (70 responses)
(1=lowest, 10=highest)
-5
5
15
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-5
5
15
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14
When asked how likely they would be to recommend eLENA to colleagues or professional
acquaintances as a tool for various nutrition-related activities, most respondents indicated that they
would be likely to very likely to do so (Figure 29).
Ten respondents indicated that there were other features or important content that they thought
would be helpful to include, 26 did not and 38 did not know. Of this last group, 30 reported using
eLENA less frequently than once per month. The following content additions were proposed:
a table or panel summarizing the intervention and/or implementation of the interventions;
baseline nutritional status of relevant populations and diet/usual intake in background materials included with interventions; and
clear explanations of where there are research gaps or controversies and work in progress or planned (including links to studies in progress).
0 5 10 15 20 25
I don't know
Very low
Low
Somewhat high
High
Very high
Figure 28. Awareness of eLENA in the nutrition field (75 responses)
0 10 20 30 40
Identifying WHO recommendationson nutrition interventions
Identifying evidence-base for WHOrecommendations
Identifying nutrition interventions forprogramme design
Identifying nutrition actions for use inthe policy cycle
Identifying general information aboutnutrition interventions
Very likely
Likely
Somewhat likely
Not likely
Not likely at all
Already recommended to others
I don't know
Figure 29. Likelihood of recommending to colleagues or professional acquaintances (73 responses)
15
Discussion and next steps: using feedback to improve user experience
User feedback
Respondents generally found that navigating the eLENA website was easy, and that content was
well-organized and informative. Responses suggest that eLENA is considered by some to be a source
for innovation in developing policies and programmes. Keeping eLENA current by continuing to add
new interventions and the latest systematic reviews is thus important to maintain its innovative
reputation.
Respondents provided examples of difficulties in navigating the eLENA website as well as
suggestions for improving the user experience. Suggestions included reorganizing content to
facilitate the identification of nutrition interventions, and improving awareness of eLENA among
those in the nutrition community. Many respondents expressed frustration at the inability to access
the full text of all systematic reviews featured on eLENA.
Some of the difficulties cited by respondents cannot be resolved at the level of NHD, including the
design and functional elements inherent to the global WHO website which cannot be altered
specifically for eLENA. For example, a small number of French-speaking respondents expressed
disappointment that eLENA is not available in French, despite the availability of eLENA in all six
official languages of WHO (toggling between languages is done through the links at the top right of
all WHO webpages). Others would like to be able to search for content only within eLENA webpages,
however, searches conducted within WHO webpages search all WHO web content by default.
Furthermore, some users commented that connectivity issues (e.g. limited bandwidth) in the
location where they normally access eLENA make it difficult to use the website.
Follow-up actions
Improvements already made
Many suggestions obtained from those participating in the survey have already been incorporated
into the eLENA website. These include:
updating the eLENA home page with clear instructions on how to access eLENA in all six
official languages of WHO;
site-wide revision of all existing non-English language versions of eLENA to reflect the
extensive improvements made to the English version;
organization of website content refined to improve usability, including the addition of
subgroupings for selected nutrition topics under which interventions are displayed (for
example, individual micronutrients subgroupings have been added under Vitamins and
minerals); and
the addition of new features including Full set of recommendations and Guidance
Summaries, which bring together related WHO recommendations and provide users
with easy access to critical information from WHO guidelines.
16
Planned improvements
While some of the issues will be challenging to address on the website, others are being addressed
by features that will be included in the pending eLENA mobile phone application (mobile app),
including:
a robust search functionality and
access to most eLENA content offline (internet connectivity only required for initial
downloading of the mobile app and subsequent updates).
Systematic review summaries, short summaries of the systematic reviews that underlie the evidence
base for each nutrition intervention, are being developed in-house and will provide mobile app
users with access to key data from the reviews. Systematic review summaries will also be provided
on the eLENA website and, and once translated, will provide access to the data in all six WHO official
languages.
In addition, means of improving the narrative text for interventions will be explored, taking into
consideration the need to balance comprehensiveness with the brevity expected for websites and
mobile phone applications. Furthermore, ways to improve use and awareness of eLENA through a
variety of mechanisms will be considered, including promotion via non-WHO channels (for example,
publication of pieces in peer-reviewed journals), improving ranking in search results from internet
search engines, building on existing nutrition networks to improve word-of-mouth dissemination
and instruction in the use of eLENA via capacity-building workshops.
Finally, plans are under way to link nutrition interventions in eLENA to relevant WHO Global
Nutrition Targets 2025 and NCD targets 2025. When complete, these links will provide users with a
resource for identifying interventions that may be most beneficial in reaching the targets.
17
Annex: Countries of residence of survey respondents, grouped by WHO regions
The Americas Europe
Argentina Croatia
Canada (3) Denmark
Guatemala Estonia
Haiti France
Mexico (3) Ireland
Peru (2) Israel
United States of America (9) Lithuania
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Poland
Slovenia
Africa Spain
Burkina Faso (3) Switzerland
Comoros The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Côte d'Ivoire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2)
Ethiopia (2) Ghana (2) South-East Asia
Madagascar Bangladesh (3)
Malawi India (5)
Mali (2) Indonesia (2)
Mozambique Sri Lanka
Namibia Timor-Leste
Nigeria (2) Sierra Leone Western Pacific
Somalia Australia (4)
South Sudan Brunei Darussalam
Uganda China
Zimbabwe (3) Japan
Malaysia
Eastern Mediterranean New Zealand
Afghanistan Philippines (4)
Egypt (2) Iran (Islamic Republic of) (2) Kuwait Oman (2) Pakistan (3) Tunisia (2) Yemen
