Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34359459›Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Identifying Policy Best-Practices to Support the Contribution of Aquatic Foods to Food and Nutrition Security.

Anna K Farmery, Amy White, Edward H Allison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Anna K FarmeryAustralian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, Wollongong 2522, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8938-0040
Amy WhiteImpacto, Melbourne 3000, Australia.
Edward H AllisonWorldFish, Penang 11960, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-4663-1396

Funding

Nippon Foundation n/aOceana n/aWorldFish n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relationship between aquatic foods and food nutrition and security is increasingly recognised in policy and practice, yet many governance instruments do not acknowledge or support this important connection. The most effective policy approaches to support the link between these sectors, or 'best practices' are currently unknown. We reviewed relevant governance instruments from multiple countries to identify how these instruments linked fisheries, aquaculture and food security and nutrition, including the policy framing and evidence of political commitment. Of the documents connecting the sectors (65%), the majority did so in the context of developing the fisheries/aquaculture sector to increase aquatic food availability and/or access (51%), followed by developing the fisheries/aquaculture sector as a livelihoods approach to indirectly improve food security (33%), for example, through income generation. Sectoral links established in the context of nutrition-sensitive approaches to fisheries and aquaculture were less common (5%). Almost one third (29%) of instruments supported the connection between aquatic foods and food security and nutrition across three or more different contexts relevant to food security or food systems, while 12% indicated a very high level of commitment. We recommend some key attributes for future policy development to help build coherence between sectors and to help frame coherent food system-based policies.

Indexed as

aquacultureaquatic foodsfisheriesfood systemsgovernancehealth

Identifiers

PMID34359459
PMCPMC8303926

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.