Each year, acute malnutrition affects an estimated 52 million children under 5 years of age. Current global treatment protocols divide treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) despite malnutrition being a spectrum disease. A proposed Combined Protocol provides for (a) treatment of MAM and SAM at the same location; (b) diagnosis using middle‐upper‐arm circumference (MUAC) and oedema only; (c) treatment using a single product, ready‐to‐use‐therapeutic food (RUTF), and (d) a simplified dosage schedule for RUTF. This study examines stakeholders' knowledge of and opinions on the Combined Protocol in Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data collection included a document review followed by in‐depth interviews with 50 respondents from government, implementing partners, and multilateral agencies, plus 11 global and regional stakeholders. Data were analysed iteratively using thematic content analysis. We find that acute malnutrition protocols in these countries have not been substantially modified to include components of the Combined Protocol, although aspects were accepted for use in emergencies. Respondents generally agreed that MAM and SAM treatment should be provided in the same location, however they said MUAC and oedema‐only diagnosis, although more field‐ready than other diagnostic measures, did not necessarily catch all malnourished children and may not be appropriate for “tall and slim” morphologies. Similarly, using only RUTF presented inherent logistical advantages, but respondents worried about pipeline issues. Respondents did not express strong opinions about simplified dosage schedules. Stakeholders interviewed indicated more evidence is needed on the operational implications and effectiveness of the Combined Protocol in different contexts.

Background: Each year, an estimated 17 million children suffer from severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and 33 million from moderate acute malnutrition (MAM), with many of the most severe cases found in extremely food insecure contexts or conflict situations. Current global outpatient treatment protocols for uncomplicated SAM and MAM, adapted by most countries for use at national level, call for SAM and MAM to be managed separately, however global-level stakeholders have recently begun evaluating simplified and/or combined protocols managing acute malnutrition. Methods: This study analyzes national policy discussions and decision-making around outpatient acute malnutrition treatment for uncomplicated cases in emergency situations in Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data collection (March-July 2018) included semi-structured in-depth interviews with 50 respondents (N = 11-15 per country) from government, funding agencies, and implementing partners, as well as 11 global and regional stakeholders. We also conducted a document analysis (N = 10-15 per country and at global level) to situate debates and evaluate current policy. Data were analyzed iteratively using thematic content analysis. Results: We find that while combined/simplified protocols for outpatient management of uncomplicated cases of acute malnutrition are being used in emergency situations in all four countries, there is widespread confusion about protocol terminology and content, stemming from a lack of coherence at the global level. As a result, national-level stakeholders express diverse, if overlapping, rationales for modifying current protocols, which vary given the intensity and scope of the emergency. Without specific global-level guidance, combined/simplified protocols are often used on an ad hoc basis, although the processes for triggering them were at least nominally controlled at the national level. Decisions about when and where to enact "exceptional" modifications to country protocols were often based on inconsistent determinations of what constitutes an "emergency." Respondents said more evidence is needed on both clinical and operational aspects of these protocols, and they awaited clear guidance from global norm-setting agencies.