Intersections of Climate Change with Food Systems, Nutrition, and Health: An Overview and Evidence Map.

Scientific research linking climate change to food systems, nutrition, and nutrition-related health (FSNH) has proliferated, showing bidirectional and compounding dependencies that create cascading risks for human and planetary health. Within this proliferation, it is unclear which evidence to prioritize for action and which research gaps, if filled, would catalyze the most impact. We systematically searched for synthesis literature (i.e., reviews) related to FSNH published after 1 January, 2018. We screened and extracted characteristics of these reviews and mapped them in an interactive Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) supplemented by expert consultation. Eight hundred forty-four synthesis reports met inclusion criteria (from 2739 records) and were included in the EGM. The largest clusters of reports were those describing climate impacts on crop and animal-source food production and emissions from such (86%). Comparatively few reports assessed climate change impacts on nutrition-related health or food manufacture, processing, storage, and transportation. Reports focused on strategies of climate adaptation (40%), mitigation (29%), both (19%), or none (12%). Only 1 quarter of reports critically evaluated equity (25%), and fewer reports suggested that changes to equity and equitable practices would alter climate-FSNH dynamics (6%). The expert consultation mirrored the results of the EGM and contextualized findings further. This novel map describes a wide research landscape linking climate change to FSNH. We identified 4 key research gaps: 1) research on whole food systems or postharvest elements; 2) research evaluating relationships between climate change and nutrition-related health outcomes, especially among vulnerable populations; 3) promising methods (and additional data required) that can i) identify inflection points or levers for intervention, ii) incorporate complex dynamics and characterize trade-offs, iii) be understood and applied in context-specific, localized ways for decision making; and 4) research undertaken through interdisciplinary collaborations that enables producing and translating evidence to action, especially those that inherently consider coproduction and fairness.

The Extent, Range, and Nature of Quantitative Nutrition Research Engaging with Intersectional Inequalities: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Addressing malnutrition for all requires understanding inequalities in nutrition outcomes and how they intersect. Intersectionality is increasingly used as a theoretical tool for understanding how social characteristics intersect to shape inequalities in health outcomes. However, little is known about the extent, range, and nature of quantitative nutrition research engaging with intersectional inequalities. This systematic scoping review aimed to address this gap. Between 15 May 2021 and 15 May 2022, we searched 8 databases. Studies eligible for inclusion used any quantitative research methodology and aimed to investigate how social characteristics intersect to influence nutrition outcomes. In total, 55 studies were included, with 85% published since 2015. Studies spanned populations in 14 countries but were concentrated in the United States (n = 35) and India (n = 7), with just 1 in a low-income country (Mozambique). Race or ethnicity and gender were most commonly intersected (n = 20), and body mass index and overweight and/or obesity were the most common outcomes. No studies investigated indicators of infant and young child feeding or micronutrient status. Study designs were mostly cross-sectional (80%); no mixed-method or interventional research was identified. Regression with interaction terms was the most prevalent method (n = 26); 2 of 15 studies using nonlinear models took extra steps to assess interaction on the additive scale, as recommended for understanding intersectionality and assessing public health impacts. Nine studies investigated mechanisms that may explain why intersectional inequalities in nutrition outcomes exist, but intervention-relevant interpretations were mostly limited. We conclude that quantitative nutrition research engaging with intersectionality is gaining traction but is mostly limited to the United States and India. Future research must consider the intersectionality of a wider spectrum of public health nutrition challenges across diverse settings and use more robust and mixed-method research to identify specific interventions for addressing intersectional inequalities in nutrition outcomes. Data systems in nutrition must improve to facilitate this. This review was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021253339.

Systematic evidence and gap map of research linking food security and nutrition to mental health.

Connections between food security and nutrition (FSN) and mental health have been analytically investigated, but conclusions are difficult to draw given the breadth of literature. Furthermore, there is little guidance for continued research. We searched three databases for analytical studies linking FSN to mental health. Out of 30,896 records, we characterized and mapped 1945 studies onto an interactive Evidence and Gap Map (EGM). In these studies, anthropometry (especially BMI) and diets were most linked to mental health (predominantly depression). There were fewer studies on infant and young child feeding, birth outcomes, and nutrient biomarkers related to anxiety, stress, and mental well-being. Two-thirds of studies hypothesized FSN measures as the exposure influencing mental health outcomes. Most studies were observational, followed by systematic reviews as the next largest category of study. One-third of studies were carried out in low- and middle-income countries. This map visualizes the extent and nature of analytical studies relating FSN to mental health and may be useful in guiding future research.