ABSTRACT Agricultural extension can have direct and important impacts on vulnerable populations, strengthening both rural livelihoods and urban food security through technology adoption and increased agricultural production. Digitally‐supported extension utilizing mobile phones can be a cost‐effective method for delivering information to farmers. However, different digitally‐supported extension delivery mechanisms may have differential impacts on farmer knowledge and behavior, especially (i) in the face of new and emergent threats to farm production, and (ii) in crises or violent conflict when trust in outside information is low and conventional extension channels are disrupted. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate two digitally‐supported extension designs—direct SMS and a novel hybrid lead‐farmer‐supported SMS method—in delivering fall armyworm management guidance to maize farmers in Myanmar after a military coup. Both approaches improved farmer knowledge. There is suggestive evidence that the lead‐farmer‐supported group spent more on pesticides and hired labor compared to the control group and used pesticides more effectively in damage control than the SMS group.
Goeb et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: