Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31325970›Full record

ArticleNutrition journal2019

Planning dietary improvements without additional costs for low-income individuals in Brazil: linear programming optimization as a tool for public policy in nutrition and health.

Eliseu Verly-Jr, Rosely Sichieri, Nicole Darmon, Matthieu Maillot, Flavia Mori Sarti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrition journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Household Food Insecurity and Feeding Practices in Brazilian Children < 5 Years: Results From Brazilian National Survey on Child Nutrition.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Differences in Cost-Effectiveness of Adherence to Nutritional Recommendations: Why, Where, and What?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Eliseu Verly-JrDepartment of Epidemiology, Institute of Social Medicine, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rua São Francisco Xavier 524, Rio de Janeiro, 20550-013, Brazil. eliseujunior@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1101-8746
Rosely SichieriDepartment of Epidemiology, Institute of Social Medicine, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rua São Francisco Xavier 524, Rio de Janeiro, 20550-013, Brazil.
Nicole DarmonMOISA, INRA, CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, Montpellier SupAgro, Université de Montpellier, 34060, Montpellier, Cedex 2, France.
Matthieu MaillotMS-Nutrition, Faculté de Médecine La Timone, 27, bd Jean Moulin, 13385, Marseille, France.
Flavia Mori SartiCenter for Research in Complex Systems Modeling, School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo, Av. Arlindo Bettio, 1000, São Paulo, 03828-000, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeeting nutrient intake recommendations may demand substantial modifications in dietary patterns, and may increase diet cost. Incentives for modifying one's dietary intake that disregard prices are unlikely to be effective in the general population, especially among low-income strata, due to the high percentage of income committed to food purchases. The aim of this study is to evaluate how much the nutrient content can be increased through a modeled diet, without any cost increase, for low-income Brazilian households.

methodsLow-income households were selected from the Household Budget Survey (24,688 households) and National Dietary Survey (6,032 households, 16,962 individuals), from where we obtained food prices and consumption data. Food quantities were modeled using linear programming to find diets that meet nutritional recommendations in two sets of models: cost-constrained (the cost should not be higher than the observed diet cost) and cost-free. Minimum and maximum amounts of each food in the modelled diets were allowed at three levels of food acceptability: rigorous (least deviance from the current observed diets), moderate, and flexible (higher deviance from the current observed diets).

resultsWe found no feasible solution that would accommodate all the nutritional targets. The most frequent limiting nutrients were calcium; vitamins D, E, and A; zinc; fiber; sodium; and saturated and trans-fats. However, increases in nutrient contents were observed, especially for fiber, calcium, copper, magnesium, vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E. In general, the best achievement was obtained with cost-free models. Fruits and beans increased in all models; large increase in whole cereals was observed only in the flexible models; large increase in vegetables was observed only in the cost-free models; and fish increased only in the cost-free models. Reductions were observed for rice, red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sweets. The mean observed cost was US$2.16 per person/day. The mean cost in the cost-free models was US$2.90 (moderate), US$2.70 (rigorous), and US$2.60 (flexible).

conclusionThe complete nutritional adequacy is unattainable, although feasible changes would substantially improve diet quality by improving nutrient content without additional costs.

Indexed as

Nutrition PolicyNutritive ValuePovertyProgramming, LinearAdolescentAdultBrazilChildDietFemaleHealth PolicyHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultDiet costDiet modelingFood planningLinear programmingNutrient adequacy

Identifiers

PMID31325970
PMCPMC6642478

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.