ArticlePloS one2026
Understanding effectiveness of a low-cost food package for ensuring food security during the COVID-19 at the household level: Difference-in-differences analyses of a quasi-experimental trial in Bangladesh.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe emergence of COVID-19 pandemic compelled to undertake a 'lockdown or shutdown' approach to control the spread of the virus. People from resource-limited settings experienced food insecurity due to lack of supply and access to adequate food during lockdown. Therefore, we developed a low-cost food package and assessed its effectiveness to improve household food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodA food package was developed with low-cost, culturally acceptable foods. Each food basket, designed to support a family of four adults and/or one child for 15 days costs 23 USD. A community-based quasi-experimental intervention study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the food package. A total of 245 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 244 participants in the control group. A community-based census was carried out to identify vulnerable households and were randomly assigned to the intervention or control groups. Data was collected to assess changes in food insecurity status using the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale, as well as dietary diversity, food frequency, morbidity, and nutritional outcomes.
resultsStatistically significant changes (p < 0.05) in food insecurity status were observed in the intervention group before, during, and after the intervention. The proportion of food-insecure households decreased from 45.31% to 7.80%, while the proportion of food-secure households increased from 8.60% to 31.02% after one month of intervention. The Difference-in-Differences (DID) models estimated a 13.10 percentage point improvement in proportions of food-secure households and a 16.20 percentage point reduction in food-insecure households, both of which were statistically significant (p < 0.05).
conclusionA low-cost food intervention improved the food security status of vulnerable families during COVID-19 lockdown. This finding suggests that government and other aid agencies can adopt the developed food package to ameliorate household food insecurity in adverse situations.
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.