Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35732381›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Making the most of existing research: an evidence gap map of the effects of food systems interventions in low-income and middle-income countries.

Ingunn Gilje Storhaug, Charlotte Lane, Nick Moore, Mark Engelbert, Thalia Morrow Sparling, Birte Snilstveit

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ingunn Gilje StorhaugInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, London, UK istorhaug@3ieimpact.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4112-2197
Charlotte LaneInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7730-6687
Nick MooreInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, London, UK.
Mark EngelbertInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3665-1257
Thalia Morrow SparlingInnovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions (IMMANA), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8071-3232
Birte SnilstveitInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIdentify and describe the available evidence on the effects food systems interventions on food security and nutrition outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries.

methodsAn adapted version of the high-level panel of experts food systems framework defined the interventions and outcomes included studies. Included study designs were experimental and quasi-experimental quantitative impact evaluations and systematic reviews. Following standards for evidence gap maps developed by 3ie, a systematic search of 17 academic databases and 31 sector-specific repositories in May 2020 identified articles for inclusion. Trained consultants screened titles/abstracts, then full texts of identified articles. Studies meeting eligibility criteria had meta-data systematically extracted and were descriptively analysed. Systematic reviews were critically appraised.

resultsThe map includes 1838 impact evaluations and 178 systematic reviews. The most common interventions, with over 100 impact evaluations and 20 systematic reviews each, were: provision of supplements, fortification, nutrition classes, direct provision of foods and peer support/counselling. Few studies addressed national-level interventions or women's empowerment. The most common final outcomes were: anthropometry, micronutrient status, and diet quality and adequacy. Intermediate outcomes were less studied.Most evaluations were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (33%) or South Asia (20%). Many studies occurred in lower-middle-income countries (43%); few (7%) were in fragile countries. Among studies in a specific age group, infants were most frequently included (19%); 14% of these also considered mothers.Few evaluations considered qualitative or cost analysis; 75% used randomisation as the main identification strategy. DISCUSSION: The uneven distribution of research means that some interventions have established impacts while other interventions, often affecting large populations, are underevaluated. Areas for future research include the evaluation of national level policies, evaluation of efforts to support women's empowerment within the food system, and the synthesis of dietary quality. Quasi-experimental approaches should be adopted to evaluate difficult to randomise interventions.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesMicronutrientsDietary SupplementsFemaleHumansIncomeInfantPovertyMicronutrientshealth policynutrition & dieteticspublic health

Identifiers

PMID35732381
PMCPMC9226932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.