Cochrane · systematic review · CD011504
Community‐level interventions for improving access to food in low‐ and middle‐income countries
Durao, S, Visser, ME, Ramokolo, V, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
42
current version
GRADE rated
24
No studies
17
Included studies
NR
No studies 17 · 40.5%Ungraded 1 · 2.4%Very low 5 · 11.9%Low 10 · 23.8%Moderate 5 · 11.9%High 4 · 9.5%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsUnconditional cash transfers compared to no intervention for food security
Population: children, adults, households
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of undernourishment Unconditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of household expenditure on food Unconditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 11271 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Food security Unconditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 10251 participants | High |
Dietary diversity Unconditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 12631 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Stunting Unconditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 4713 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Wasting Unconditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 6396 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Cognitive function and development Unconditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 10813 participants | High |
Conditional cash transfers compared to no intervention for food security
Population: children, adults, households
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of undernourishment Conditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of household expenditure spent on food Conditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 4760 participants | High |
Food security Conditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Dietary diversity Conditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 3937 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stunting Conditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 3529 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Wasting Conditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2116 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Cognitive function and development Conditional cash transfers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 5383 participants | High |
Income‐generation interventions compared to no intervention for food security
Population: children, adults, households
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of undernourishment Income‐generation interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of household expenditure on food Income‐generation interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 434 participants | Ungraded |
Food security Income‐generation interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 2193 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Dietary diversity Income‐generation interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 3677 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Stunting Income‐generation interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 3466 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Wasting Income‐generation interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 3500 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Cognitive function and development Income‐generation interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Food vouchers compared to no intervention for food security
Population: poor households
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of undernourishment Food vouchers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of household expenditure on food Food vouchers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Food security Food vouchers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Dietary diversity Food vouchers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2459 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Stunting (HAZ < –2SD) Food vouchers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1633 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Wasting (WHZ < –2SD) Food vouchers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1633 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Cognitive function and development Food vouchers vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Food and nutrition subsidies compared to no intervention for food security
Population: primary schools and households and members of healthcare plan
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of undernourishment Food and nutrition subsidies vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of household expenditure on food Food and nutrition subsidies vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 169485 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Food security Food and nutrition subsidies vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Dietary diversity Food and nutrition subsidies vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 656 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Stunting Food and nutrition subsidies vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Wasting Food and nutrition subsidies vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cognitive function and development Food and nutrition subsidies vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Social support compared to no intervention for food security
Population: households at risk of food insecurity
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of undernourishment Social support vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of household expenditure on food Social support vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Food security Social support vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1687 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Dietary diversity Social support vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1615 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Stunting Social support vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1481 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Wasting Social support vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1481 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Cognitive function and development Social support vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |