Community-based nutrition interventions across the continuum of care in humanitarian settings: a systematic review and evidence map.
Annette N Brown, Alessandro Iellamo
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and evidence map examined community-based nutrition interventions in humanitarian and emergency settings in low- and middle-income countries. It included 53 documents: 39 primary study documents covering 33 interventions across 20 countries, and 14 systematic reviews. Evidence was concentrated in Africa and on community groups, nutrition counselling, and community-based management of acute malnutrition. Preventive interventions generally improved infant and young child feeding practices and caregiver behaviours, but anthropometric effects were inconsistent. Treatment delivered through community health workers and volunteers was associated with improved recovery, programme coverage, and treatment performance.
Key findings
- The review included 53 documents, comprising 39 primary study documents on 33 interventions across 20 countries and 14 systematic reviews.
- Preventive interventions generally improved infant and young child feeding practices and caregiver behaviours, while anthropometric effects were inconsistent.
- Treatment interventions delivered by community health workers and volunteers improved recovery, programme coverage, and treatment performance.
- Evidence remained limited for dietary intake, food security, caregiver capacity, relapse prevention, and longer-term outcomes.
Why it matters
Community platforms can extend nutrition services where humanitarian crises disrupt conventional delivery, with evidence suggesting benefits for feeding practices and treatment outcomes. The review also highlights that improvements in these outcomes do not establish consistent effects on growth or other longer-term measures. Identifying gaps in food security, relapse prevention, and sustained outcomes can help guide evaluation of humanitarian nutrition programmes.
What to keep in mind
Evidence was concentrated in Africa and in a limited set of intervention types; findings were synthesised narratively, and evidence for several outcomes, including longer-term outcomes, was limited.