Impact of Intervention Strategies on Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Low-, Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Nadia Koyratty, Fusta Azupogo, Taryn J Smith, Guy-Marino Hinnouho, Manisha Tharaney, Lilia Bliznashka, Deanna K Olney, Sonja Y Hess
{"title":"Impact of Intervention Strategies on Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Low-, Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Nadia Koyratty, Fusta Azupogo, Taryn J Smith, Guy-Marino Hinnouho, Manisha Tharaney, Lilia Bliznashka, Deanna K Olney, Sonja Y Hess","doi":"10.1177/03795721251350208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundDespite well-documented health benefits, fruit and vegetable (F&V) intake remains below recommended levels globally.ObjectivesThis scoping review aimed to identify effective intervention strategies to increase F&V intake.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Web of Science (February 2023) for intervention studies assessing impact on F&V intake. Eligibility criteria included studies published in English since 2012, a valid control group, ≥2 weeks duration, and ≥50 participants per intervention arm. Analysis was done by intervention comparison. Findings were described by summarizing proportion of intervention comparisons reporting statistically significant increases in fruit, vegetable and/or combined F&V intake across standalone (nutrition communication, social protection, agriculture or food environment restructuring) and multi-component strategies.ResultsA total of 284 intervention comparisons (223 unique studies) were included. The majority of comparisons (191/284) came from high-income countries (HICs) and 93/284 from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Nutrition communication was the most common standalone strategy, with 121/218 comparisons reporting positive impacts on fruit, vegetable and/or combined F&V intake. Fewer studies evaluated standalone social protection (13/284), food environment restructuring (4/284), or agriculture strategies (3/284). Among the limited interventions, 7/13 social protection and 3/4 food environment restructuring comparisons reported positive impacts, while none of the three standalone agricultural interventions did. Multi-component interventions demonstrated potential with 28/46 comparisons having positive impacts.ConclusionsSome of the intervention strategies showed potential for increasing fruit and/or vegetable intake. However, given the heterogeneity of the interventions, small number of studies for some strategies and limited evidence from LMICs, more rigorous, context-specific research is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":12394,"journal":{"name":"Food and Nutrition Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"3795721251350208"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food and Nutrition Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03795721251350208","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundDespite well-documented health benefits, fruit and vegetable (F&V) intake remains below recommended levels globally.ObjectivesThis scoping review aimed to identify effective intervention strategies to increase F&V intake.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Web of Science (February 2023) for intervention studies assessing impact on F&V intake. Eligibility criteria included studies published in English since 2012, a valid control group, ≥2 weeks duration, and ≥50 participants per intervention arm. Analysis was done by intervention comparison. Findings were described by summarizing proportion of intervention comparisons reporting statistically significant increases in fruit, vegetable and/or combined F&V intake across standalone (nutrition communication, social protection, agriculture or food environment restructuring) and multi-component strategies.ResultsA total of 284 intervention comparisons (223 unique studies) were included. The majority of comparisons (191/284) came from high-income countries (HICs) and 93/284 from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Nutrition communication was the most common standalone strategy, with 121/218 comparisons reporting positive impacts on fruit, vegetable and/or combined F&V intake. Fewer studies evaluated standalone social protection (13/284), food environment restructuring (4/284), or agriculture strategies (3/284). Among the limited interventions, 7/13 social protection and 3/4 food environment restructuring comparisons reported positive impacts, while none of the three standalone agricultural interventions did. Multi-component interventions demonstrated potential with 28/46 comparisons having positive impacts.ConclusionsSome of the intervention strategies showed potential for increasing fruit and/or vegetable intake. However, given the heterogeneity of the interventions, small number of studies for some strategies and limited evidence from LMICs, more rigorous, context-specific research is needed.

干预策略对低收入、中等收入和高收入国家水果和蔬菜摄入的影响:范围综述
尽管有充分的证据表明水果和蔬菜对健康有益,但在全球范围内,水果和蔬菜的摄入量仍低于推荐水平。目的本综述旨在确定有效的干预策略,以增加食物和饮料的摄入。方法我们检索PubMed和Web of Science(2023年2月)评估F&V摄入影响的干预研究。入选标准包括2012年以来发表的英文研究、有效对照组、持续时间≥2周、每个干预组≥50名受试者。采用干预比较分析。研究结果是通过总结干预比较的比例来描述的,这些比较报告了在独立(营养交流、社会保护、农业或食品环境重组)和多成分策略中水果、蔬菜和/或综合食品和饮料摄入量的统计显着增加。结果共纳入284项干预比较(223项独立研究)。大多数比较(191/284)来自高收入国家(HICs), 93/284来自中低收入国家(LMICs)。营养沟通是最常见的独立策略,121/218的比较报告了对水果、蔬菜和/或食品和饮料组合摄入的积极影响。较少的研究评估了单独的社会保护(13/284)、食品环境重组(4/284)或农业战略(3/284)。在有限的干预措施中,7/13的社会保护和3/4的粮食环境重组比较报告了积极的影响,而三种独立的农业干预措施都没有。多组分干预显示出潜力,28/46比较显示出积极影响。结论一些干预策略显示出增加水果和/或蔬菜摄入量的潜力。然而,考虑到干预措施的异质性、针对某些策略的研究数量较少以及来自中低收入国家的证据有限,需要更严格的、针对具体情况的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Food and Nutrition Bulletin
Food and Nutrition Bulletin 工程技术-食品科技
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Food and Nutrition Bulletin (FNB,) is a peer-reviewed, academic journal published quarterly by the Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. The Journal is one of the leading resources used by researchers, academics, nutrition policy makers and planners in over 125 countries to obtain the most current research and policy information related to nutrition in developing countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信