Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26825273›Full record

ArticleJournal of health, population, and nutrition2015

Socio-economic determinants of household food security and women's dietary diversity in rural Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study.

Helen Harris-Fry, Kishwar Azad, Abdul Kuddus, Sanjit Shaha, Badrun Nahar, Munir Hossen, Leila Younes, Anthony Costello, Edward Fottrell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Helen Harris-FryUCL Institute for Global Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. h.fry.11@ucl.ac.uk.
Kishwar AzadPerinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, 122 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh.
Abdul KuddusPerinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, 122 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh.
Sanjit ShahaPerinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, 122 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh.
Badrun NaharPerinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, 122 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh.
Munir HossenPerinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, 122 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh.
Leila YounesUCL Institute for Global Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK.
Anthony CostelloUCL Institute for Global Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK.
Edward FottrellUCL Institute for Global Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been limited decline in undernutrition rates in South Asia compared with the rest of Asia and one reason for this may be low levels of household food security. However, the evidence base on the determinants of household food security is limited. To develop policies intended to improve household food security, improved knowledge of the determinants of household food security is required.

methodsHousehold data were collected in 2011 from a randomly selected sample of 2,809 women of reproductive age. The sample was drawn from nine unions in three districts of rural Bangladesh. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted to measure the relationship between selected determinants of household food security and months of adequate household food provisioning, and a linear regression to measure the association between the same determinants and women's dietary diversity score.

resultsThe analyses found that land ownership, adjusted relative risk ratio (RRR) 0.28 (CI 0.18, 0.42); relative wealth (middle tertile 0.49 (0.29, 0.84) and top tertile 0.18 (0.10, 0.33)); women's literacy 0.64 (0.46, 0.90); access to media 0.49 (0.33, 0.72); and women's freedom to access the market 0.56 (0.36, 0.85) all significantly reduced the risk of food insecurity. Larger households increased the risk of food insecurity, adjusted RRR 1.46 (CI 1.02, 2.09). Households with vegetable gardens 0.20 (0.11, 0.31), rich households 0.46 (0.24, 0.68) and literate women 0.37 (0.20, 0.54) were significantly more likely to have better dietary diversity scores.

conclusionHousehold food insecurity remains a key public health problem in Bangladesh, with households suffering food shortages for an average of one quarter of the year. Simple survey and analytical methods are able to identify numerous interlinked factors associated with household food security, but wealth and literacy were the only two determinants associated with both improved food security and dietary diversity. We cannot conclude whether improvements in all determinants are necessarily needed to improve household food security, but new and existing policies that relate to these determinants should be designed and monitored with the knowledge that they could substantially influence the food security and nutritional status of the population.

Indexed as

DietDiet, HealthyFood SupplyPatient ComplianceRural HealthWomen's HealthAdolescentAdultBangladeshCross-Sectional StudiesFamily CharacteristicsFemaleGardeningHumansLiteracyMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26825273
PMCPMC5026026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.