Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27829486›Full record

SynthesisPublic health nutrition2017

Gender differences in the prevalence of household food insecurity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Natália Miranda Jung, Fernanda Souza de Bairros, Marcos Pascoal Pattussi, Sílvia Pauli, Marilda Borges Neutzling

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Public health nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

25 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

5 authors.

Natália Miranda Jung1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Epidemiologia,Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,Rua Ramiro Barcelos 2400,2º andar,CEP 90035-003,Santana/Porto Alegre,RS,Brasil.
Fernanda Souza de Bairros2Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva,Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,Porto Alegre,RS,Brasil.
Marcos Pascoal Pattussi3Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva,Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos,Cristo Rei/São Leopoldo,RS,Brasil.
Sílvia Pauli1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Epidemiologia,Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,Rua Ramiro Barcelos 2400,2º andar,CEP 90035-003,Santana/Porto Alegre,RS,Brasil.
Marilda Borges Neutzling1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Epidemiologia,Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,Rua Ramiro Barcelos 2400,2º andar,CEP 90035-003,Santana/Porto Alegre,RS,Brasil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe present review aimed to identify and synthesize literature on household food insecurity with respect to whether the respondent was male or female.

designA systematic review of prevalence studies followed by a meta-analysis was conducted between 28 August 2014 and 19 October 2014 in seven electronic databases. The search was updated in April 2016. The included studies used experience-based measures to assess household food insecurity. Dichotomous measures of food insecurity were used. Pooled odds ratios of household food insecurity prevalence in women v. men were obtained through random-effect modelling. Quality assessment, publication bias diagnostics and subgroup analysis were also performed.

settingPopulation-based studies (i.e. non-clinical populations). SUBJECTS: Participants aged 18 years or over.

resultsOut of the 5145 articles initially identified, forty-two studies with a total population of 233 153 were included. In general, results showed that the odds for household food insecurity was 40 % higher in studies where women were the respondent (95 % CI 1·27, 1·54; P<0·001). Besides, subgroup analysis revealed that female-headed households were 75% (95 % CI 49-96%) more likely to be food insecure than male-headed households.

conclusionsOur results confirm the existence of gender differences in reporting household food insecurity. Furthermore, they indicate that households headed by women constitute a segment of the population that is particularly vulnerable to food insecurity.

Indexed as

Sex FactorsFamily CharacteristicsFemaleFood SupplyHumansMaleObservational Studies as TopicPrevalencePublication BiasRisk FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsFemaleFood insecurityGenderPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID27829486
PMCPMC10261641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.