4.6 Review

Impact of COVID-19 on the food security and identifying the compromised food security dimension: A systematic review protocol

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 17, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272859

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article aims to systematically summarize the impact of COVID-19 on food security and identify the most compromised food security dimension, providing guidance for food security regulators and actors to prioritize interventions.
Background Food security is substantially affected directly by COVID-19 and/or indirectly by the measures adopted for the prevention of COVID-19 transmission. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the impact of COVID-19 on food security and identify the most compromised food security dimension to ease the food security regulators and actors' intervention prioritisation. Methodology Primary research focused on the impact of COVID-19 on food security will be searched from three online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus), manually using a google scholar search engine, and studies' reference list were also manually searched. The prevalence of food insecurity in each study and the most compromised food security dimension including their associated factors will be identified. The food insecurity before and after COVID-19 emergence and the status of food security dimension before and after COVID-19 will be compared and interpreted. Discussion The heterogeneity of the studies and the factors for the variability of outcomes will be discussed. COVID-19 had a negative impact on food security if the food insecurity prevalence before the emergence of COVID-19 is less than during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other confounding factors that can contribute to the high food insecurity prevalence like natural disasters, war, and instability will be considered in addition to COVID-19.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available