SynthesisBMC public health2026
Food insecurity and gender-based violence against women during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundGender-based violence (GBV) and food insecurity are conditions that affect women and may also exacerbate each other, as women experience disproportionately higher levels of both globally. Both of these conditions also increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe how the association between food insecurity and GBV across multiple global regions during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted women. The review aims to inform equity-driven interventions and policy development in the event for use during future emergency crises.
methodsThe social-ecological model (SEM) and the intersectionality framework were the frameworks used for this systematic review. The PRISMA guidelines guided this systematic review methodology. The literature search was conducted using the APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases in November 2025. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) studies that assessed the association between food insecurity and GBV among women during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (3) studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The exclusion criterion was any study that was not primary research. The Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was used for quality appraisal. Thematic analysis, guided by Hennink and colleagues (2020), was used to synthesize the results.
resultsThirty-two studies were included in the data analysis. At the individual level, food insecurity and GBV during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a greater likelihood of reporting mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression. Additionally, being an immigrant was associated with a high risk of experiencing food insecurity and GBV. At the relationship level, food insecurity and GBV were associated with household instability and family dysfunction. At the community level, the association was influenced by poverty and limited employment opportunities. At the societal level, restrictive COVID-19 policies and prevailing cultural norms contributed to intensifying food insecurity and GBV.
conclusionThis study offers support for strengthening crisis‒response systems across socio-ecological levels that incorporate gender-sensitive food security and violence prevention strategies during public health emergencies. New policies are needed to create effective support systems to promote women's health, especially marginalized groups, who experience the greatest vulnerability.
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.