| Rowe (6) |
Premix reconciliation calculation |
Current monitoring systems |
Effective data collection |
| Asirvatham et al. (55) |
New nutrition-sensitive policies |
Old policies |
Improved policy coordination and collaboration |
| Mildon et al. (18) |
Community-based fortification |
Nationwide initiatives |
Improved reach of fortification initiatives |
| Vasta et al. (56) |
Digital tools and technologies |
Non-digitized tools |
Improved program decision-making and nutrition impact |
| Tarini et al. (57) |
Fortification |
International community guidance, zinc deficiency assessment, regional fortification standards, and lack of evidence |
Improved zinc intake |
| Olson et al. (49) |
Improved private-public partnerships, key support in advocacy, management, implementation, capacity building, and regulatory monitoring |
Current fortification programs |
Improved fortification implementation |
| Benson et al. (58) |
Agriculture and food security policies |
Strong performance on policy processes 2017/2018 |
Improved processes from improved implementation |
| Rohner et al. (59) |
Collection and usage of fortification program data in decision-making and program improvement |
Available coverage data from salt fortification, possibly from inclusion in MICS and DHS |
Improved implementation of LSFF |
| Makhumula et al. (60) |
Model of fortification legislation |
|
increased nutrient uptake, easy monitoring and evaluation, corrective action, and assigns roles and responsibilities |
| Meerman (61) |
incorporating nutrition in national policies |
Food security equals nutrition security |
Cross-sectoral collaboration, mainstreaming the nutrition agenda |
| Storhaug et al. (62) |
Nutritional interventions |
|
Addressing key evidence gaps in the evaluation of national-level policies evaluation |
| Bell et al. (54) |
Revising guidelines on regulations |
Codex/RSA |
Harmonized regulation eases fortification implementation |
| Wessells et al. (63) |
Large-scale food fortification (zinc) |
Current LSFF programs |
Zinc inclusion in LSFF, boosting current zinc fortification levels |
| Babu et al. (38) |
Local leadership, coordinating power in the policy hierarchy |
Process triggered by external events, external funding, no concrete strategy for biofortification, poor physical infrastructure and monitoring for LSFF |
Better implementation |
| Tang et al. (37) |
Mathematical modeling framework |
Current tracking methods |
LSFF is beneficial for mostly urban populations, with low consumption of some vehicles |
| Della Lucia et al. (64) |
Correct choice of the fortifying micronutrients, Establishment of fortification levels and the selection of a suitable vehicle |
|
Effective fortification |
| Mejia et al. (65) |
National micronutrient fortification commissions or alliances aimed to foster inter-program coordination |
No provisions in the existing regulations require coordination mechanisms among interventions |
A comprehensive regulatory framework for coexisting micronutrient interventions |
| Reme (66) |
|
cross-sectoral coordination, nutrition awareness, continued government support, capacity-related issues, lack of institutional home and funding |
|
| Hess et al. (67) |
FRAT |
Recommended sampling reconsidered, guidelines revised to clarify important aspects of fieldworker training, implementation, data analysis and interpretation and reporting of the results. |
National food fortification planning |
| Marks et al. (5) |
Checklist for fortification policy and programs |
Roles and responsibilities between agencies, the cost of regulating fortification, and enforcement strategies are often lacking. |
Improved regulations and implementation |
| Bell et al. (47) |
Dietary diversification |
Compulsory fortification is excessive, unproductive, and likely harmful to human health |
Eliminates the underlying causes of malnutrition, unlike mandatory fortification |
| Mkambula et al. (11) |
New LSFF programs, Implementation research, advocacy, and new vehicles |
Current LSFF programs |
|
| Mkambula et al. (68) |
Fortification and biofortification |
needs, constraints, and opportunities of the population in terms of consumption patterns, supply chains, and market structures; (2) easy-to-implement, cost-effective and real-time monitoring of program delivery, coverage, cost, and nutrient intake and a rigorous evidence-based approach, including lessons learnt, to help inform policy |
|
| Han et al. (69) |
|
The agronomic, economic, and administrative capability of the target regions regarding fortification methods and vehicles to maximize effectiveness. Strategies to ensure the producers’ and consumers’ adoption to enhance the uptake rate, evaluate outcomes for economic metrics rather than focusing solely on before-and-after comparison to avoid biased assessment. |
|
| Lalani et al. (70) |
Business models and approach |
Current approach |
|
