Lawrence Mark, Wingrove Kate, Naude Celeste, Durao Solange
Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood 3125, Australia.
Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie van Zijl Drive, Tygerberg 7505, South Africa.
Nutrients. 2016 Sep 8;8(9):555. doi: 10.3390/nu8090555.
Over two billion people suffer from micronutrient deficiencies. Food fortification is a prominent nutrition intervention to combat such deficiencies; however, its effectiveness, risks, and ethical implications vary depending on the contexts associated with the deficiency it is addressing and the circumstances with its implementation. The aim of this research was to analyse the profile of nutrition interventions for combating micronutrient deficiency with particular focus on food fortification reported in existing systematic reviews (SRs), guidelines and policy statements, and implementation actions for nutrition. A review of secondary data available from online databases of SRs, guidelines and policy statements, and implementation actions, categorised as either "nutrition-specific interventions" (NSpI) or "nutrition-sensitive interventions" (NSeI), was conducted. Currently, there is evidence available for a diversity of food fortification topics, and there has been much translation into action. Indeed, food fortification and micronutrient supplementation interventions and NSpI more broadly dominate the profile of interventions for which there were SRs, guidelines, and policy statements available. The findings demonstrate that, although there is a rational linear relationship between evidence synthesis and translation in formulating policy and actions to combat micronutrient deficiencies, the various nutrition interventions available to help combat micronutrient deficiencies are not equally represented in the evidence synthesis and translation processes. Effective and safe policies and actions to combat micronutrient deficiencies require decisions to be informed from a body of evidence that consists of evidence from a variety of interventions. Into the future, investment in making available a higher number of SRs, guidelines and policy statements, and actions of NSeI is indicated.
超过二十亿人患有微量营养素缺乏症。食品强化是应对此类缺乏症的一项重要营养干预措施；然而，其有效性、风险和伦理影响因所针对的缺乏症相关背景以及实施情况而异。本研究的目的是分析应对微量营养素缺乏症的营养干预措施概况，特别关注现有系统评价（SRs）、指南和政策声明以及营养实施行动中报告的食品强化。对从SRs、指南和政策声明以及实施行动的在线数据库中获取的二手数据进行了审查，这些数据分为“特定营养干预措施”（NSpI）或“营养敏感干预措施”（NSeI）。目前，有关于多种食品强化主题的证据，并且已经有很多转化为行动。事实上，食品强化和微量营养素补充干预措施以及更广泛的NSpI在有SRs、指南和政策声明的干预措施概况中占主导地位。研究结果表明，尽管在制定应对微量营养素缺乏症的政策和行动时，证据综合与转化之间存在合理的线性关系，但在证据综合和转化过程中，可用于帮助应对微量营养素缺乏症的各种营养干预措施的代表性并不相同。有效的安全的应对微量营养素缺乏症的政策和行动需要基于一系列证据做出决策，这些证据包括来自各种干预措施的证据。未来，需要加大投资，以提供更多的SRs、指南和政策声明以及NSeI行动。
