DISCUSSION
DISEASE, BLIND
Our study evaluated an HFP intervention that promoted poultry rearing, home gardening, and nutrition counseling in women's groups over a 3‐year period, examining impacts during project implementation and 1 year after the conclusion of program activities. We found that the intervention improved poultry production and management practices and increased women's and children's egg consumption. We also demonstrated a sustained increase in egg consumption 1‐year post‐intervention, the first such evaluation to our knowledge to demonstrate longer‐term impacts. In women, this was in part attributable to increased poultry ownership. We did not find evidence that poultry mediated the impact of the intervention on children's egg consumption. This study presents the first results examining a program impact pathway of the FAARM trial. A comprehensive analysis examining multiple program impact pathways will be published separately.As in our study, other poultry interventions have demonstrated increases in chicken and egg production (Alderman et al., In our study, egg consumption increased among women 1 year after the start of the intervention and remained higher than controls throughout and up to 1‐year post‐intervention. Two poultry intervention studies have also demonstrated positive impacts on women's egg consumption (Alderman et al., We found that the HFP intervention increased children's egg consumption 1.5 years into the intervention, with evidence that this positive impact was sustained post‐intervention. Several poultry trials have similarly reported positive impacts on children's egg consumption (Alderman et al., The small contribution of the poultry component on egg consumption among women and children in our study may be due to some challenges faced during project implementation. Participants were slow to construct poultry sheds, delaying their uptake by about 1.5 years. Some participants were also reluctant to use the sheds, preferring to allow poultry to free‐roam outside during the day and keep them inside the house at night to prevent theft and predation, a barrier also noted in other Helen Keller International poultry interventions (Nordhagen & Klemm, Strengths of our study include the robust study design, comprehensive data collection during and post‐intervention, and a large sample size. Our study also had some limitations. We used 24‐h dietary recalls which may underestimate the intake of infrequently consumed foods such as eggs. Poultry and dietary data were based on women's self‐report, which may be subject to recall bias and social desirability bias as it was not possible to blind participants to the intervention. To understand the production‐consumption pathway, additional quantitative and qualitative data are needed on the use of poultry and poultry eggs for food, income, or other purposes, and the source of eggs for consumption, which was not analyzed in this study. Further, poultry production may have increased egg consumption in ways that we did not capture by only examining one indicator of poultry production in the mediation analysis. Additionally, our results may not be generalizable to other settings in Bangladesh, as women in our study area had generally limited mobility and rights, thus we may have seen a different impact if the trial had taken place in an area with higher women's empowerment. Finally, poultry production may increase the risk of zoonotic disease exposure in women and children (Alders et al., 