Making the most of existing research: an evidence gap map of the effects of food systems interventions in low-income and middle-income countries. Issue 6 (22nd June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Storhaug, Ingunn Gilje; Lane, Charlotte; Moore, Nick; Engelbert, Mark; Sparling, Thalia Morrow; Snilstveit, Birte
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 12:Issue 6(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-06-22
• Subjects: nutrition & dietetics -- public health -- health policy; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055062
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: Identify and describe the available evidence on the effects food systems interventions on food security and nutrition outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries. Methods: An adapted version of the high-level panel of experts food systems framework defined the interventions and outcomes included studies. Included study designs were experimental and quasi-experimental quantitative impact evaluations and systematic reviews. Following standards for evidence gap maps developed by 3ie, a systematic search of 17 academic databases and 31 sector-specific repositories in May 2020 identified articles for inclusion. Trained consultants screened titles/abstracts, then full texts of identified articles. Studies meeting eligibility criteria had meta-data systematically extracted and were descriptively analysed. Systematic reviews were critically appraised. Results: The map includes 1838 impact evaluations and 178 systematic reviews. The most common interventions, with over 100 impact evaluations and 20 systematic reviews each, were: provision of supplements, fortification, nutrition classes, direct provision of foods and peer support/counselling. Few studies addressed national-level interventions or women's empowerment. The most common final outcomes were: anthropometry, micronutrient status, and diet quality and adequacy. Intermediate outcomes were less studied. Most evaluations were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (33%) or South Asia (20%). Many studies occurred in lower-middle-income countries (43%); few (7%) were in fragile countries. Among studies in a specific age group, infants were most frequently included (19%); 14% of these also considered mothers. Few evaluations considered qualitative or cost analysis; 75% used randomisation as the main identification strategy. Discussion: The uneven distribution of research means that some interventions have established impacts while other interventions, often affecting large populations, are underevaluated. Areas for future research include the evaluation of national level policies, evaluation of efforts to support women's empowerment within the food system, and the synthesis of dietary quality. Quasi-experimental approaches should be adopted to evaluate difficult to randomise interventions.