Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37018454›Full record

ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2021

Aquaculture for improving productivity, income, nutrition and women's empowerment in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Constanza Gonzalez Parrao, Shannon Shisler, Marta Moratti, Cem Yavuz, Arnab Acharya, John Eyers, Birte Snilstveit

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Constanza Gonzalez ParraoInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation London UK.
Shannon ShislerInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation London UK.
Marta MorattiInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation London UK.
Cem YavuzInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation London UK.
Arnab AcharyaIndependent Consultant London UK.
John EyersInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation London UK.
Birte SnilstveitInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation London UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A steady increase in the international production and consumption of fish has positioned aquaculture as a development option. Previous literature has highlighted the potential of aquaculture to improve economic, nutritional and gender equality outcomes, however, the evidence on the effectiveness of these programmes remains unclear. Objectives: The review assessed whether aquaculture interventions increase the productivity, income, nutrition, and women's empowerment of individuals. We additionally aimed to identify barriers and facilitators that could affect the effectiveness of these interventions, and the cost-effectiveness of such programmes. Methods: We searched for experimental and quasi-experimental studies focused on low- and middle-income countries. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration for the data collection and analysis. Results: We identified 21 impact evaluations assessing the effect of 13 aquaculture interventions in low- and lower-middle income countries. Twelve of these studies have a high risk of bias. Aquaculture interventions lead to a small increase in the production value, income, total expenditures and food consumption of participants. The limited availability of evidence prevented us from assessing other nutritional and women's empowerment outcomes. We identified barriers and facilitators affecting the programmes' set up, the participation of beneficiaries, and the level of productive activities. Insufficient cost data hindered full comparisons across programmes. Conclusions: The review suggests a lack of rigorous evidence assessing the effectiveness of aquaculture programmes. Future research could focus on evaluating nutrition and women's empowerment impacts, promoting reporting standards, and the use of cost data to continue building quality evidence around aquaculture interventions.

Identifiers

PMID37018454
PMCPMC8988765

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.