ArticlePublic health nutrition2020
Equity implications of rice fortification: a modelling study from Nepal.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Potential Contributions of Edible Oil and Wheat Flour Fortification on Reducing Inadequate Micronutrient Intake in Ethiopia.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Article
- Assessing food-based strategies to address anaemia in pregnancy in rural plains Nepal: a mixed methods study.The British journal of nutrition · 2023Article
- Human Dietary Exposure to Heavy Metals via Rice in Nepal.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Update on Analytical Methods and Research Gaps in the Use of Household Consumption and Expenditure Survey Data to Inform the Design of Food-Fortification Programs.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Addressing anaemia in pregnancy in rural plains Nepal: A qualitative, formative study.Maternal & child nutrition · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo model the potential impact and equity impact of fortifying rice on nutritional adequacy of different subpopulations in Nepal.
designUsing 24-h dietary recall data and a household consumption survey, we estimated: rice intakes; probability of adequacy (PA) of eight micronutrients commonly fortified in rice (vitamin A, niacin (B3), pyridoxine (B6), cobalamin (B12), thiamin (B1), folate (B9), Fe and Zn) plus riboflavin (B2), vitamin C and Ca and mean probability of adequacy (MPA) of these micronutrients. We modelled: no fortification; fortification of purchased rice, averaged across all households and in rice-buying households only. We compared adequacy increases between population subgroups.
setting(i) Dhanusha and Mahottari districts of Nepal (24-h recall) and (ii) all agro-ecological zones of Nepal (consumption data).
participants(i) Pregnant women (n 128), mothers-in-law and male household heads; (ii) households (n 4360).
resultsUnfortified diets were especially inadequate in vitamins B12, A, B9, Zn and Fe. Fortification of purchased rice in rice-purchasing households increased PA > 0·9 for thiamin, niacin, B6, folate and Zn, but B12 and Fe remained inadequate even after fortification (PA range 0·3-0·9). Pregnant women's increases exceeded men's for thiamin, niacin, B6, folate and MPA; men had larger gains in vitamin A, B12 and Zn. Adequacy improved more in the hills (coefficient 0·08 (95 % CI 0·05, 0·10)) and mountains (coefficient 0·07 (95 % CI 0·01, 0·14)) but less in rural areas (coefficient -0·05 (95 % CI -0·09, -0·01)).
conclusionsConsumption of purchased fortified rice improves adequacy and gender equity of nutrient intake, especially in non-rice-growing areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.