Dataset Information

Making the most of existing research: an evidence gap map of the effects of food systems interventions in low-income and middle-income countries.

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.

SUBMITTER: Storhaug IG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9226932 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Background More than half of the children in the world experience some form of interpersonal violence every year. As compared with high‐income countries, policy responses in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) are limited due to resource constraints and paucity of evidence for effective interventions to reduce violence against children in their own contexts, amongst other factors. Objectives The aim of this evidence and gap map (EGM) is to provide an overview of the existing evidence available and to identify gaps in the evidence base on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce violence against children in LMICs. This report covers evidence published in English; a follow‐up study is under preparation focusing on evidence in five additional languages—Arabic, Chinese, French, Portuguese and Spanish. Methods The intervention‐outcome framework for this EGM is based on INSPIRE—Seven Strategies for Ending Violence against Children, published by WHO and other partners in 2016. The seven strategies include implementation and enforcement of laws; norms and values, safe environment; parent–child and caregiver support; income and economic strengthening; response and support services; education and life skills. The search included both academic and grey literature available online. We included impact evaluations and systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of interventions to reduce interpersonal violence against children (0–18 years) in LMICs (World Bank, 2018b). Interventions targeting subpopulation of parents, teachers and caregivers of 0–18 years’ age group were also included. A critical appraisal of all included studies was carried out using standardised tools. Results The map includes 152 studies published in English of which 55 are systematic reviews and 97 are impact evaluations. Most studies in the map are from Sub‐Saharan Africa. Education and life skills are the most widely populated intervention area of the map followed by income and economic strengthening interventions. Very few studies measure impact on economic and social outcomes, and few conduct cost‐analysis. Conclusion More studies focusing on low‐income and fragile and conflict‐affected settings (FCS) and studying and reporting on cost‐analysis are required to address gaps in the evidence. Most interventions covered in the literature focused on addressing a wide range of forms of violence and harm, which limited understanding of how and for whom the interventions work in a given context, for specific forms of violence. More impact evaluation studies are required that assess specific forms of violence, gendered effects of interventions and on diverse social groups in a given context, utilising mixed methods.

Project description:Background . For the last two decades there has been growing interest in governmental and global health stakeholders about the role that performance measurement and management systems can play for the production of high-quality and safely delivered primary care services. Despite recognition and interest, the gaps in evidence in this field of research and practice in low- and middle-income countries remain poorly characterized. This study will develop an evidence gap map in the area of performance management in primary care delivery systems in low- and middle-income countries. Methods. The evidence gap map will follow the methodology developed by 3Ie, the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, to systematically map evidence and research gaps. The process starts with the development of the scope by creating an evidence-informed framework that helps identify the interventions and outcomes of relevance as well as help define inclusion and exclusion criteria. A search strategy is then developed to guide the systematic search of the literature, covering the following databases: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CAB Global Health (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Cochrane Library, Scopus (Elsevier), and Econlit (Ovid). Sources of grey literature are also searched. Studies that meet the inclusion criteria are systematically coded, extracting data on intervention, outcome, measures, context, geography, equity, and study design. Systematic reviews are also critically appraised using an existing standard checklist. Impact evaluations are not appraised but will be coded according to study design. The process of map-building ends with the creation of an evidence gap map graphic that displays the available evidence according to the intervention and outcome framework of interest. Discussion . Implications arising from the evidence map will be discussed in a separate paper that will summarize findings and make recommendations for the development of a prioritized research agenda.

Project description:Abstract Background Despite a considerable reduction in child mortality, nearly six million children under the age of five die each year. Millions more are poorly nourished and in many parts of the world, the quality of education remains poor. Children are at risk from multiple violations of their rights, including child labour, early marriage, and sexual exploitation. Research plays a crucial role in helping to close the remaining gaps in child well‐being, yet the global evidence base for interventions to meet these challenges is mostly weak, scattered and often unusable by policymakers and practitioners. This mega‐map encourages the generation and use of rigorous evidence on effective ways to improve child well‐being for policy and programming. Objectives The aim of this mega‐map is to identify, map and provide an overview of the existing evidence synthesis on the interventions aimed at improving child well‐being in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods Campbell evidence and gap maps (EGMs) are based on a review of existing mapping standards (Saran & White, 2018) which drew in particular of the approach developed by 3ie (Snilstveit, Vojtkova, Bhavsar, & Gaarder, 2013). As defined in the Campbell EGM guidance paper; “Mega‐map is a map of evidence synthesis, that is, systematic reviews, and does not include primary studies” (Campbell Collaboration, 2020). The mega‐map on child well‐being includes studies with participants aged 0–18 years, conducted in LMICs, and published from year 2000 onwards. The search followed strict inclusion criteria for interventions and outcomes in the domains of health, education, social work and welfare, social protection, environmental health, water supply and sanitation (WASH) and governance. Critical appraisal of included systematic reviews was conducted using “A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews”‐AMSTAR‐2 rating scale (Shea, et al., 2017). Results We identified 333 systematic reviews and 23 EGMs. The number of studies being published has increased year‐on‐year since 2000. However, the distribution of studies across World Bank regions, intervention and outcome categories are uneven. Most systematic reviews examine interventions pertaining to traditional areas of health and education. Systematic reviews in these traditional areas are also the most funded. There is limited evidence in social work and social protection. About 69% (231) of the reviews are assessed to be of low and medium quality. There are evidence gaps with respect to key vulnerable populations, including children with disabilities and those who belong to minority groups. Conclusion Although an increasing number of systematic reviews addressing child well‐being topics are being published, some clear gaps in the evidence remain in terms of quality of reviews and some interventions and outcome areas. The clear gap is the small number of reviews focusing explicitly on either equity or programmes for disadvantaged groups and those who are discriminated against.