"The current systematic review identified seven overall findings with distinct programmatic and research implications for capacity strengthening (CS) in social and behavior change communication (SBCC). First, there is a scarcity of literature about specific evaluation of CS for SBCC. Although CS has become a ‘buzz word’ in international development (Hawe et al., 2000), published evaluations of CS activities that aim to build SBCC capacity in LMICs are rare. Only 19 publications met the study’s eligibility criteria, and only three focused solely on CS findings. This review’s findings complement previous literature which has noted that evaluation of CS efforts for SBCC is rare (Lettenmaier et al., 2014). Future evaluations should publish their findings more widely in order to share lessons learned with others interested in implementing CS activities in SBCC and generate further knowledge about what works and what does not work. Second, the review found that among publications that described evaluation findings of CS for SBCC, most did not emphasize the assessment of CS activities. The details of how CS activities were evaluated was often lost in description of large multi-arm interventions that were not focused on SBCC or CS [...] Third, the current systematic review found that evaluation assessments of CS for SBCC generally employ non-experimental designs. Of the reviewed publications, only one described an experimental design [...] Fourth, in terms of the SBCC Capacity Ecosystem, while evaluations commonly addressed organization-level capacity and individual-level competencies, they rarely addressed system-level capacity [...] Fifth, publications highlighted several challenges regarding assessing sustainability of CS activities. Although CS is key to ensuring sustainable gains in development, most publications did not explicitly assess sustainability [...] Sixth, authors identified the shortcomings in terms of quality, both in terms of the writing as well as providing sufficient detail and documentation to support claims. Problems of clarity in the writing, particularly in gray literature, made it difficult to understand what kind of CS activities were most effective at strengthening capacity for SBCC [...] Finally, publications did not consistently support all of their recommendations and conclusions with evaluation findings." (Discussion, page 13-14)