ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2025
Informing the Design of Large-Scale Food Fortification Programs with Secondary Data: Pilot Results from Nigeria and Zambia.
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Scale Food Fortification (LSFF) in East, Central, and Southern Africa: Gaps, opportunities and the way forward.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Antagonistic Influence of Phytic Acid on Zinc Absorption: AnNutrients · 2025Article
- Nutrient gaps and dietary adequacy among adolescent girls in rural North-Eastern Ghana: the role of local food-based approaches, school lunch and multiple-micronutrient fortified biscuits.The British journal of nutrition · 2025Article
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
Background: Large-scale food fortification (LSFF) can improve micronutrient intake, but low-income and middle-income countries often lack resources to collect data for LSFF decision making. We designed a methodology using existing data and methods to inform LSFF programming. Objectives: This study aimed to pilot a methodology using existing diet, market, and diet cost data and assess its implementation feasibility and usefulness for LSFF decision making. Methods: We used household food consumption/availability data from Nigeria and Zambia to assess dietary micronutrient inadequacy and model contributions of LSFF. Market survey (Nigeria) and agrifood information system (Zambia) data were used to estimate availability of fortifiable foods. We used Cost of the Diet software to estimate affordability of an adequate diet in Zambia. We engaged country stakeholders to determine modeling parameters and assess methodology implementation. Results: The analyses took ∼6 mo and cost ∼150,000 USD (Nigeria) and ∼250,000 USD (Zambia). Results showed diets were inadequate to meet vitamin A, folate, and zinc requirements of 32%-67% of households in Nigeria and 51%-83% of households in Zambia. Modeling existing LSFF in Nigeria demonstrated improved micronutrient adequacy of diets, with further improvements possible with rice fortification. In Zambia, existing vitamin A-fortified sugar marginally reduced inadequacy. Introducing mandatory wheat flour and/or maize flour fortification could reduce folate and zinc inadequacies. The market assessment demonstrated widespread availability of fortifiable edible oil, sugar, and wheat flour, but not fortifiable maize flour. The cost of the diet in Zambia with LSFF was similar to the cost without LSFF. Stakeholders found the methodology's components together generated useful, timely evidence for LSFF programming. Conclusions: Our methodology showed opportunities for improving the micronutrient adequacy of diets in Nigeria and Zambia through LSFF. The methodology generated evidence that stakeholders agreed can support LSFF planning. Investments and strategies are needed to strengthen capacity to conduct the assessments, reduce costs, and streamline methods.
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.