TABLE 4.
Summary of community partners of the interventions and their significant effect on the food security dimensions and their components by the quality level of included studies.
| Quality | Study | Community partners | Dimensions and components affected by the interventions | ||||
| Food security | Availability | Access | Utilization | Stability | |||
| Ball et al. (46) | Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Catawba County Public Health Farmers’ Market (CCPH FM), Eat Smart Move More, local farmers, UNCG | − | ● The average redemption rate was 51.4% between 2007 and 2013 (rank of 10). The rate of redemption in 2013 increased from 51.3 to 62.9% (rank of 3) | − | − | − | |
| Weak | Boedecker et al. (51) | Community health volunteers (CHVs) | − | − | ● Children’s mean DDS (effects of treatment = 0.7, p < 0.001)Children reaching MDD (effects of treatment = 0.2, p < 0.001) | − | − |
| Breckwich et al. (44) | Non-profit youth empowerment, Literacy for Environmental Justice (LEJ), environmental justice education organization, and Public Health’s Tobacco Free Project (TFP) | − | − | ● Achieve an innovative and sustainable public policy strategy to increase community access to nutritious food | − | − | |
| Carney et al. (43) | Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (OCTRI), Nuestra Comunidad Sana uses (the Community Health Worker model), Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), National Institutes of Health National Center for Research Resources, community group staff | − | ● Vegetable intake increased from 18.2 to 84.8% (p < 0.001) in adults ● Vegetable intake increased from 24.0 to 64.0% (p = 0.003) in children |
− | − | ||
| Dailey et al. (45) | Adams County Food Policy Council (ACFPC), Adams County Farmers’ Market, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) | − | ● 34.2% of participants reported consumption of 2–3 servings of fruits and vegetables daily ● Two-thirds of respondents reported four or more fruits and vegetables daily |
− | − | ||
| Kazige et al. (48) | Local farmers | − | ● Increasing gross domestic product per capita [Maise gave the highest mushroom yields (2.4 kg kg–1)] | ● 43.5% of the households used common beans for consumption as a vegetable ● 20.7% of the households sold common beans at the local market |
− | − | |
| Madsen (52) | Soils, Food and Healthy Communities, non-profit organizations in Malawi, local enumerators, non-profit staff, translators, and researchers | The percentage of food security increased from 10% at baseline to 30% at endline | ● Increasing crop diversity on intervention farms from a mean of 2.06 crops to 4.23 crops | − | − | − | |
| Rollins et al. (47) | Residents, academic institutions, and social service agencies | ● 80% of customers said that they would purchase healthy food, e.g., fresh and inexpensive vegetable and fruits if sold in corner stores | |||||
| Moderate | Kang et al. (41) | Rural Eastern Ethiopian communities, female operators, Health Extension Workers, and community volunteers, 18 enumerators | − | − | − | Children in the intervention area had ● Faster growth in length [difference (diff): 0.059 cm/month; 95% CI: 0.027, 0.092; p = 0.001] and weight (diff: 0.031 kg/month; 95% CI: 0.019, 0.042; p < 0.001). ● Monthly changes in WAZ (diff: 0.028 z score/month; 95% CI: 0.016, 0.039) and WLZ (diff: 0.042 z score/month; 95% CI: 0.024, 0.059) |
− |
| Kansanga et al. (50) | Trained enumerators who were fluent in the local languages (Tumbuka and Chichewa) | − | ● Positive significant effect on household production diversity (β = 0.289, p < 0.01) | ● Positive significant effect in household mean dietary diversity (β = 0.175, p < 0.01) | − | − | |
| Jernigan et al. (53, 54) | Trained tribal collaborators, tribal-university | − | − | ● Participants perceived healthier stores after the intervention ● Higher shopping frequency was related to purchases of fruits, vegetables, and healthy items |
− | − | |
| Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al. (49) | Trained enumerators familiar with the local language | Food security improvement in agroecological adopting households | ● Agroecological-adopting households have more optimal health compared with non-adopting households (adopters were 12% more likely to be in health status) | − | |||