ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2022
Critical review of indicators, metrics, methods, and tools for monitoring and evaluation of biofortification programs at scale.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating the Number of People Eating Biofortified Foods On-Farm and from Markets: a Detailed Methodology and Tool.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- Biofortification as a sustainable strategy to address micronutrient malnutrition in South Asia.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Review
- Monitoring Biofortification Program Performance and Potential for Impact: Indicators, Methods, and Learnings from the Commercialization of Biofortified Crops Program in Six Countries across Africa and Asia.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Article
- Household-Level Coverage of Iron-Biofortified Beans in the Northern Province of Rwanda.Current developments in nutrition · 2023Article
- A generic theory of change-based framework with core indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of large-scale food fortification programs in low- and middle-income countries.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Role of socio-economic research in developing, delivering and scaling new crop varieties: the case of staple crop biofortification.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sound monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are needed to inform effective biofortification program management and implementation. Despite the existence of M&E frameworks for biofortification programs, the use of indicators, metrics, methods, and tools (IMMT) are currently not harmonized, rendering the tracking of biofortification programs difficult. We aimed to compile IMMT for M&E of existing biofortification programs and recommend a sub-set of high-level indicators (HLI) for a harmonized global M&E framework. We conducted (1) a mapping review to compile IMMT for M&E biofortification programs; (2) semi-structured interviews (SSIs) with biofortification programming experts (and other relevant stakeholders) to contextualize findings from step 1; and (3) compiled a generic biofortification program Theory of Change (ToC) to use it as an analytical framework for selecting the HLI. This study revealed diversity in seed systems and crop value chains across countries and crops, resulting in differences in M&E frameworks. Yet, sufficient commonalities between implementation pathways emerged. A set of 17 HLI for tracking critical results along the biofortification implementation pathway represented in the ToC is recommended for a harmonized global M&E framework. Further research is needed to test, revise, and develop mechanisms to harmonize the M&E framework across programs, institutions, and countries.
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.