Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36601081›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2022

Community-based participatory interventions to improve food security: A systematic review.

Azam Doustmohammadian, Fatemeh Mohammadi-Nasrabadi, Nastaran Keshavarz-Mohammadi, Melika Hajjar, Sepideh Alibeyk, Maryam Hajigholam-Saryazdi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Food inequity and insecurity and MASLD: burden, challenges, and interventions.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Azam DoustmohammadianGastrointestinal and Liver Diseases Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Fatemeh Mohammadi-NasrabadiResearch Department of Food and Nutrition Policy and Planning, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Nastaran Keshavarz-MohammadiSchool of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Melika HajjarDepartment of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Student Research Committee, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sepideh AlibeykFaculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Library, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Maryam Hajigholam-SaryazdiFaculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Library, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This systematic review aimed to evaluate community-based participatory (CBP) interventions to improve food security and/or its dimensions to highlight the scope and characteristics of interventions and extract the characteristics of effective interventions. Methods: The electronic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, were searched from 1980 to 30 August 2022 for relevant studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCT), and interrupted time series (ITS) studies to identify the community-based participatory interventions. The indicators of food and nutrition security into four dimensions, as well as food insecurity measured as score and/or prevalence of food insecurity based on validated perception-based measures were considered outcome. Two reviewers independently evaluated the studies for eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP). The quality of included reports was categorized as strong (when there were no weak ratings), moderate (when one factor was rated as weak), or weak (when two or more factors were rated as weak). A descriptive analysis of the findings was performed. Results: A total of twelve studies were included. The quality of all eligible studies ( Discussion: CBP interventions guided by formative research data and agroecological practices were promising strategies to improve food security and its dimensions. Insufficient data on the stability components of food security and weak design studies were the considerable gaps in the research evidence reviewed. More research employing randomized experimental designs with adequate sample size and high retention rates is required. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42020189477].

Indexed as

community-based participatory researchfood insecurityfood securityinterventionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36601081
PMCPMC9807164

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.