↓ Skip to main content

Type and extent of trans-disciplinary co-operation to improve food security, health and household environment in low and middle income countries: systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Type and extent of trans-disciplinary co-operation to improve food security, health and household environment in low and middle income countries: systematic review
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3731-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Santosh Gaihre, Janet Kyle, Sean Semple, Jo Smith, Madhu Subedi, Debbi Marais

Abstract

Although linkages have been found between agricultural interventions and nutritional health, and the development of clean fuels and improved solid fuel stoves in reducing household air pollution and adverse health effects, the extent of the potential of combined household interventions to improve health, nutrition and the environment has not been investigated. A systematic review was conducted to identify the extent and type of community-based agricultural and household interventions aimed at improving food security, health and the household environment in low and middle income countries. A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE and SCOPUS databases was performed. Key search words were generated reflecting the "participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study design" approach and a comprehensive search strategy was developed following "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" recommendations. Any community-based agricultural and/or household interventions were eligible for inclusion if the focus was to improve at least one of the outcome measures of interest. All relevant study designs employing any of these interventions (alone/in combination) were included if conducted in Low and middle income countries. Review articles, and clinical and occupational studies were excluded. A total of 123 studies were included and grouped into four intervention domains; agricultural (n = 27), air quality (n = 34), water quality (n = 32), and nutritional (n = 30). Most studies were conducted in Asia (39.2 %) or Africa (34.6 %) with the remaining 26.1 % in Latin America. Very few studies (n = 11) combined interventions across more than one domain. The majority of agricultural and nutritional studies were conducted in Africa and Asia, whereas the majority of interventions to improve household air quality were conducted in Latin America. It is clear that very little trans-disciplinary research has been done with the majority of studies still being discipline specific. It also appears that certain low and middle income countries seem to focus on domain-specific interventions. The review emphasizes the need to develop holistic, cross-domain intervention packages. Further investigation of the data is being conducted to determine the effectiveness of these interventions and whether interdisciplinary interventions provide greater benefit than those that address single health or community problems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 27%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 23 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2016.
All research outputs
#4,639,040
of 8,608,742 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,251
of 7,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,096
of 245,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#119
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,608,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 245,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.