MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4386127905 · doi:10.1136/jech-2023-ssmabstracts.160

P55 The COVID-19 pandemic and food security in households with children: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4386127905 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Williams, Nida Ziauddeen, Elizabeth Taylor, Dianna Smith, Nisreen A Alwan

Notice bibliographique

RevueSSM Annual Scientific Meeting · 2023
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGrey literatureFood securityPandemicObservational studySystematic reviewCochrane LibraryMedicineCohort studyMEDLINECohortEnvironmental healthFamily medicineMeta-analysisCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GeographyPolitical scienceDiseaseAgriculturePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Food insecurity is defined as not having safe and regular access to nutritious food to meet basic needs. Recent studies have found a worsening of food security in adults over the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this review was to systematically examine the evidence analysing the direct and indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on food insecurity and diet quality in households with children within high-income countries. <h3>Methods</h3> For this narrative synthesis, an electronic database search was undertaken on EMBASE, Cochrane Library, International Bibliography of Social Science, and Web of Science. We also searched relevant cites for grey literature. Eligible texts included include households with children, with the study being undertaken in an OECD country comparing the outcomes to before the pandemic or another geographical setting. Studies written in English, published from 01/01/2020 were included. Rayyan software was used for the screening process. Systematic reviews and conference abstracts were excluded. Quality assessment of the selected studies were undertaken by two reviewers using the National Institute of Health tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. <h3>Results</h3> 5,626 records were identified from the electronic database search, after de-duplication 4,851 titles and abstracts were screened. Full text of 46 studies was screened. Sixteen studies were included in this review. Nine were cross-sectional (asked participants to recall their food security of the months previous) and seven cohort studies. Twelve studies were based in the USA, one in Canada, one in Italy and two in the UK. Eight studies were rated of ‘good’ quality, seven were rated of ‘fair’ quality, and one study (grey literature) did not fit to the quality assessment criteria. Thirteen studies reported the COVID-19 pandemic worsened food insecurity in households with children &lt;18 years. Job disruption was found to be a key influencer of food insecurity during the pandemic, and access to existing interventions which support families to afford nutritious food were protective against food insecurity. Around half of participants in three studies investigating diet quality had a change in diet. This was more pronounced in those with food insecurity. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Although the studies elicited varying results and measured food insecurity using different tools, most showed that the COVID-19 pandemic worsened food security in households with children. Given the study designs, it is difficult to infer causality in this relationship. Food insecure families should be supported, and interventions targeting food insecurity should be developed to improve long term health.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,017
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,231
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0170,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,305
Tête enseignante GPT0,486
Écart entre enseignants0,182 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSSM Annual Scientific MeetingMême sujetFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsTravaux en français237 207