RESUMEN
Scientific research linking climate change to food systems, nutrition, and nutrition-related health (FSNH) has proliferated, showing bidirectional and compounding dependencies that create cascading risks for human and planetary health. Within this proliferation, it is unclear which evidence to prioritize for action and which research gaps, if filled, would catalyze the most impact. We systematically searched for synthesis literature (i.e., reviews) related to FSNH published after 1 January, 2018. We screened and extracted characteristics of these reviews and mapped them in an interactive Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) supplemented by expert consultation. Eight hundred forty-four synthesis reports met inclusion criteria (from 2739 records) and were included in the EGM. The largest clusters of reports were those describing climate impacts on crop and animal-source food production and emissions from such (86%). Comparatively few reports assessed climate change impacts on nutrition-related health or food manufacture, processing, storage, and transportation. Reports focused on strategies of climate adaptation (40%), mitigation (29%), both (19%), or none (12%). Only 1 quarter of reports critically evaluated equity (25%), and fewer reports suggested that changes to equity and equitable practices would alter climate-FSNH dynamics (6%). The expert consultation mirrored the results of the EGM and contextualized findings further. This novel map describes a wide research landscape linking climate change to FSNH. We identified 4 key research gaps: 1) research on whole food systems or postharvest elements; 2) research evaluating relationships between climate change and nutrition-related health outcomes, especially among vulnerable populations; 3) promising methods (and additional data required) that can i) identify inflection points or levers for intervention, ii) incorporate complex dynamics and characterize trade-offs, iii) be understood and applied in context-specific, localized ways for decision making; and 4) research undertaken through interdisciplinary collaborations that enables producing and translating evidence to action, especially those that inherently consider coproduction and fairness.
Asunto(s)
Cambio Climático , Abastecimiento de Alimentos , Estado Nutricional , HumanosRESUMEN
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.