Collective Empowerment and Influential Group Membership Matter for Household Food Security
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reducing the gender gap in empowerment within households is associated with indicators of improved diet. This study developed a household-level empowerment measure and then examined its association with food security. This analysis used baseline data from a nutrition-sensitive agriculture intervention in rural Ghana (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03869853). Only 198 of the 330 households with complete paired empowerment data for one female and one male were included. The household empowerment measure was constructed in two stages. First, the individual empowerment score was assessed using the project-level Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI) with its 12 indicators (e.g., influential group membership, access to financial services). Participants were classified as empowered (≥75%, 9 out of 12 indicators) or disempowered (<75%). Then, the household was categorized as empowered (both members empowered; 50.5%), semi-empowered (only one member empowered; 34.9%) or disempowered (both members not empowered; 14.6%). Two of the pro-WEAI indicators were assessed also at the household level using the same technique. Food security was assessed with the 15-item Latin American and Caribbean Food Security Scale; a binary variable was created: food secure (0), food insecure (FIS; >0). Cluster-adjusted logistic regression models examined the relationship between FIS and household empowerment. Over half (58%) of households were FIS. Empowered compared to disempowered households had a lower odds of being FIS (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.29, 0.86]). The model for influential group membership showed that empowered were less likely than disempowered households to be FIS (aOR = 0.27, 95% CI [0.13, 0.58]) while the model for access to financial services showed the opposite (aOR = 3.15, 95% CI [1.80, 5.51]). These results highlight the complexity of empowerment measures and support empowerment approaches that target different members of the household. The Canadian Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Scholarships (QES) is managed through a unique partnership of Universities Canada, RHF, CFC, and Canadian universities. The QES-AS is made possible with financial support from IDRC and SSHRC.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».