SynthesisPloS one2025
The work of farmers in short food supply chains: Systematic literature review and research agenda.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging digital solutions to address gender inequalities in EU agriculture: a CODECS framework application.Open research Europe · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the last 20 years or so, farmers the world over have been expressing renewed interest in Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs). Since these marketing channels bring consumers and producers closer together, they are being promoted as a means for producers to recover more of the added value. They are also seen as a part of the solution to the problems associated with long supply chains. However, marketing via SFSCs means that farmers have to take on new tasks, which are likely to disrupt their existing work routines. We propose here to review the scientific knowledge available on the work of farmers in SFSCs.
methodsWe carry out a systematic analysis of the English-language literature using a multidisciplinary analytical framework of work. We consider five dimensions of work: 1) structural elements of work; 2) economic performance of work; 3) organization of work; 4) working conditions; and 5) occupation.
resultsThe theme of work is not prominent in the existing literature on SFSCs. While there is ongoing debate whether a switch to SFSCs results in increased farm incomes, it is clear that marketing through SFSCs relies on a large amount of poorly remunerated work. New tasks have to be added to work schedules, and new skills are required, making the organization of both productive and marketing work more complex. Various categories of workers are involved in undertaking these tasks, having to bear a heavy workload that is a source of stress and fatigue. However, the economic aspect aside, SFSCs appear to be conducive to farmers' self-fulfillment at work. Farmers derive particular satisfaction from their involvement in SFSCs since they are more in touch with consumers and because they are participating in the transition of food systems, despite the intellectually and physically demanding work they have to do.
conclusionWe call for the study of farmers' work in SFSCs to be strengthened, by diversifying both the methodologies adopted and the case studies. Such knowledge should enable us to better integrate work-related issues into future public policies to support SFSCs.
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.