0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Critical review of indicators, metrics, methods, and tools for monitoring and evaluation of biofortification programs at scale

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Sound monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are needed to inform effective biofortification program management and implementation. Despite the existence of M&E frameworks for biofortification programs, the use of indicators, metrics, methods, and tools (IMMT) are currently not harmonized, rendering the tracking of biofortification programs difficult. We aimed to compile IMMT for M&E of existing biofortification programs and recommend a sub-set of high-level indicators (HLI) for a harmonized global M&E framework. We conducted (1) a mapping review to compile IMMT for M&E biofortification programs; (2) semi-structured interviews (SSIs) with biofortification programming experts (and other relevant stakeholders) to contextualize findings from step 1; and (3) compiled a generic biofortification program Theory of Change (ToC) to use it as an analytical framework for selecting the HLI. This study revealed diversity in seed systems and crop value chains across countries and crops, resulting in differences in M&E frameworks. Yet, sufficient commonalities between implementation pathways emerged. A set of 17 HLI for tracking critical results along the biofortification implementation pathway represented in the ToC is recommended for a harmonized global M&E framework. Further research is needed to test, revise, and develop mechanisms to harmonize the M&E framework across programs, institutions, and countries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries?

          I Coyne (1997)
          Sampling is a very complex issue in qualitative research as there are many variations of qualitative sampling described in the literature and much confusion and overlapping of types of sampling, particularly in the case of purposeful and theoretical sampling. The terms purposeful and theoretical are viewed synonomously and used interchangeably in the literature. Many of the most frequent misinterpretations relate to the disparate meanings and usage of the terminology. It is important that the terminology is examined so that underlying assumptions be made more explicit. Lack of shared meanings and terminology in the nursing discourse creates confusion for the neophyte researcher and increases the production of studies with weak methodologies. This paper analyses critically purposeful and theoretical sampling and offers clarification on the use of theoretical sampling for nursing research. The aim is not to make prescriptive statements on sampling; rather, to enhance understanding of the differences between purposeful and theoretical sampling for nursing research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Improving nutrition through biofortification: A review of evidence from HarvestPlus, 2003 through 2016

            Biofortification is a feasible and cost-effective means of delivering micronutrients to populations that may have limited access to diverse diets and other micronutrient interventions. Since 2003, HarvestPlus and its partners have demonstrated that this agriculture-based method of addressing micronutrient deficiency through plant breeding works. More than 20 million people in farm households in developing countries are now growing and consuming biofortified crops. This review summarizes key evidence and discusses delivery experiences, as well as farmer and consumer adoption. Given the strength of the evidence, attention should now shift to an action-oriented agenda for scaling biofortification to improve nutrition globally. To reach one billion people by 2030, there are three key challenges: 1) mainstreaming biofortified traits into public plant breeding programs; 2) building consumer demand; and 3) integrating biofortification into public and private policies, programs, and investments. While many building blocks are in place, institutional leadership is needed to continue to drive towards this ambitious goal.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Biofortification: a new tool to reduce micronutrient malnutrition.

              The density of minerals and vitamins in food staples eaten widely by the poor may be increased either through conventional plant breeding or through the use of transgenic techniques, a process known as biofortification. HarvestPlus seeks to develop and distribute varieties of food staples (rice, wheat, maize, cassava, pearl millet, beans, and sweet potato) that are high in iron, zinc, and provitamin A through an interdisciplinary, global alliance of scientific institutions and implementing agencies in developing and developed countries. In broad terms, three things must happen for biofortification to be successful. First, the breeding must be successful--high nutrient density must be combined with high yields and high profitability. Second, efficacy must be demonstrated--the micronutrient status of human subjects must be shown to improve when they are consuming the biofortified varieties as normally eaten. Thus, sufficient nutrients must be retained in processing and cooking and these nutrients must be sufficiently bioavailable. Third, the biofortified crops must be adopted by farmers and consumed by those suffering from micronutrient malnutrition in significant numbers. Biofortified crops offer a rural-based intervention that, by design, initially reaches these more remote populations, which comprise a majority of the undernourished in many countries, and then penetrates to urban populations as production surpluses are marketed. In this way, biofortification complements fortification and supplementation programs, which work best in centralized urban areas and then reach into rural areas with good infrastructure. Initial investments in agricultural research at a central location can generate high recurrent benefits at low cost as adapted, biofortified varieties become available in country after country across time at low recurrent costs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Nutr
                Front Nutr
                Front. Nutr.
                Frontiers in Nutrition
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-861X
                13 October 2022
                2022
                : 9
                : 963748
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University , Wageningen, Netherlands
                [2] 2HarvestPlus, c/o International Food Policy Research Institute , Washington, DC, United States
                [3] 3Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Global Human Development Program , Washington, DC, United States
                [4] 4Department of Nutritional Sciences and Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA, United States
                [5] 5Department of Food Technology, Safety and Health, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University , Ghent, Belgium
                [6] 6Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [7] 7The Micronutrient Forum , Washington, DC, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Cristina Martínez-Villaluenga, Institute of Science and Technology of Food and Nutrition (CSIC), Spain

                Reviewed by: Veronica Lopez Teros, Universidad de Sonora, Mexico; Kathleen L. Hefferon, Cornell University, United States

                *Correspondence: Santiago Rodas-Moya, rodas.santiago@ 123456gmail.com

                This article was submitted to Nutrition and Food Science Technology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Nutrition

                Article
                10.3389/fnut.2022.963748
                9607891
                36313073
                59fad42e-668a-4d1a-893d-a01b786ecf0b
                Copyright © 2022 Rodas-Moya, Giudici, Mudyahoto, Birol, Kodish, Lachat, Abreu, Melse-Boonstra, van het Hof, Brouwer, Osendarp and Feskens.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 10 June 2022
                : 26 September 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 7, Equations: 0, References: 57, Pages: 20, Words: 11989
                Categories
                Nutrition
                Policy and Practice Reviews

                biofortification programs,monitoring and evaluation frameworks,indicators,metrics,methods,tools

                Comments

                Comment on this article