The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A review of the effectiveness of agriculture interventions in improving nutrition outcomes
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: To review the impact of agriculture interventions on nutritional status in participating households, and to analyse the characteristics of interventions that improved nutrition outcomes. Design: We identified and reviewed reports describing 30 agriculture interventions that measured impact on nutritional status. The interventions reviewed included home gardening, livestock, mixed garden and livestock, cash cropping, and irrigation. We examined the reports for the scientific quality of the research design and treatment of the data. We also assessed whether the projects invested in five types of ‘capital’ (physical, natural, financial, human and social) as defined in the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, a conceptual map of major factors that affect people's livelihoods. Results: Most agriculture interventions increased food production, but did not necessarily improve nutrition or health within participating households. Nutrition was improved in 11 of 13 home gardening interventions, and in 11 of 17 other types of intervention. Of the 19 interventions that had a positive effect on nutrition, 14 of them invested in four or five types of capital in addition to the agriculture intervention. Of the nine interventions that had a negative or no effect on nutrition, only one invested in four or five types of capital. Conclusions: Those agriculture interventions that invested broadly in different types of capital were more likely to improve nutrition outcomes. Those projects which invested in human capital (especially nutrition education and consideration of gender issues), and other types of capital, had a greater likelihood of effecting positive nutritional change, but such investment is neither sufficient nor always necessary to effect change.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ruel, M. T., & Alderman, H. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60843-0 · Cited by 1,820
Contextualising complementary feeding in a broader framework for stunting prevention
Stewart, C. P., Iannotti, L., Dewey, K. G., Michaelsen, K. F., & Onyango, A. W. (2013) · Maternal & Child Nutrition · doi:10.1111/mcn.12088 · Cited by 710
Improving diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape
Powell, B., Thilsted, S. H., Ickowitz, A., Termote, C., Sunderland, T., & Herforth, A. (2015) · Food Security · doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0466-5 · Cited by 382
Jones, A. D. (2017) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nux040 · Cited by 310
How to do a good systematic review of effects in international development: a tool kit
Waddington, H., White, H., Snilstveit, B., Hombrados, J. G., Vojtkova, M., Davies, P., Bhavsar, A., Eyers, J., Koehlmoos, T. P., Petticrew, M., et al. (2012) · Journal of Development Effectiveness · doi:10.1080/19439342.2012.711765 · Cited by 278
Metadata
- Authors
- Berti, P. R., Krasevec, J., & FitzGerald, S.
- Venue
- Public Health Nutrition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 599-609
- ISSN
- 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-2727
- OpenAlex
- W2161393010
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review of the effectiveness of agriculture interventions in improving nutrition outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1079/phn2003595
- The paper
- Berti, P. R., Krasevec, J., & FitzGerald, S. (2004). A review of the effectiveness of agriculture interventions in improving nutrition outcomes. Public Health Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1079/phn2003595
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.