Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29358603›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2018

Status and determinants of intra-household food allocation in rural Nepal.

Helen A Harris-Fry, Puskar Paudel, Niva Shrestha, Tom Harrisson, B James Beard, Sonali Jha, Bhim P Shrestha, Dharma S Manandhar, Anthony M D L Costello, Mario Cortina-Borja and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

11 authors.

Helen A Harris-FryLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. helen.harris-fry@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2367-908X
Puskar PaudelMother and Infant Research Activities, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Niva ShresthaLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Tom HarrissonInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
B James BeardLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sonali JhaMother and Infant Research Activities, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bhim P ShresthaMother and Infant Research Activities, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Dharma S ManandharMother and Infant Research Activities, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Anthony M D L CostelloInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Mario Cortina-BorjaGreat Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Naomi M SavilleInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthWellcome Trust 085417
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesUnderstanding of the patterns and predictors of intra-household food allocation could enable nutrition programmes to better target nutritionally vulnerable individuals. This study aims to characterise the status and determinants of intra-household food and nutrient allocation in Nepal. SUBJECTS/

methodsPregnant women, their mothers-in-law and male household heads from Dhanusha and Mahottari districts in Nepal responded to 24-h dietary recalls, thrice repeated on non-consecutive days (n = 150 households; 1278 individual recalls). Intra-household inequity was measured using ratios between household members in food intakes (food shares); food-energy intake proportions ('food shares-to-energy shares', FS:ES); calorie-requirement proportions ('relative dietary energy adequacy ratios', RDEARs) and mean probability of adequacy for 11 micronutrients (MPA ratios). Hypothesised determinants were collected during the recalls, and their associations with the outcomes were tested using multivariable mixed-effects linear regression models.

resultsWomen's diets (pregnant women and mothers-in-law) consisted of larger FS:ES of starchy foods, pulses, fruits and vegetables than male household heads, whereas men had larger FS:ES of animal-source foods. Pregnant women had the lowest MPA (37%) followed by their mothers-in-law (52%), and male household heads (57%). RDEARs between pregnant women and household heads were 31% higher (log-RDEAR coeff=0.27 (95% CI 0.12, 0.42), P < 0.001) when pregnant women earned more or the same as their spouse, and log-MPA ratios between pregnant women and mothers-in-law were positively associated with household-level calorie intakes (coeff=0.43 (0.23, 0.63), P < 0.001, per 1000 kcal).

conclusionsPregnant women receive inequitably lower shares of food and nutrients, but this could be improved by increasing pregnant women's cash earnings and household food security.

Indexed as

DietFamily CharacteristicsFamily RelationsFeeding BehaviorFood SupplyRural PopulationAdolescentAdultEnergy IntakeFemaleHumansIncomeMaleMicronutrientsMiddle AgedNepalMicronutrientsNutrients

Identifiers

PMID29358603
PMCPMC5924867

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.