The Association of Women's Participation in Farmer-Based Organizations with Female and Male Empowerment and its Implication for Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture Interventions in Rural Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have examined the influence of women's participation in farmer groups on female and male empowerment, which is considered essential to improving nutrition. The study aimed to 1) assess the empowerment of Ghanaian women farmers, 1 adult male family decision-maker per household, and the household gender equality; and 2) investigate the relation of empowerment and household gender equality with women's participation in farmer-based organizations (FBOs), women's and men's nutritional status, and household food security. A cross-sectional study investigated secondary outcomes using baseline data from a nutrition-sensitive agriculture intervention implemented through FBOs in rural Ghana. Existing FBOs in 8 communities were selected based on 6 criteria (e.g., participation level, readiness to change). Female FBO (n = 166) and non-FBO (n = 164) members together with a male family member (n = 205) provided data on individual and household characteristics; empowerment was measured across 11 indicators with the project-level Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index. Generalized linear mixed models tested the associations of empowerment and household gender equality with FBO membership, nutritional status, and household food security. Women's FBO membership was associated with an increased likelihood of women's empowerment [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 3.25; 95% CI: 1.97, 5.33] and household gender parity (aOR: 2.82; 95% CI: 1.39, 5.84) but not men's empowerment. Household food insecurity, but not nutritional status, was positively associated with women's FBO participation and individual empowerment indicators (financial services). Food insecurity was negatively associated with the women's empowerment indicator related to attitudes about domestic violence [adjusted β coefficient (aβ): −0.78; 95% CI: −1.35, −0.21] and men's overall empowerment (aβ: −0.79; 95% CI: −1.58, −0.01). Understanding the complexity in which FBO participation, empowerment, nutritional status, and food security are linked is critical in designing interventions that promote gender equality and improved nutrition. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03869853.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".