4.8 Review

Double-duty actions: seizing programme and policy opportunities to address malnutrition in all its forms

期刊

LANCET
卷 395, 期 10218, 页码 142-155

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32506-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. WHO through Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Actions to address different forms of malnutrition are typically managed by separate communities, policies, programmes, governance structures, and funding streams. By contrast, double-duty actions, which aim to simultaneously tackle both undernutrition and problems of overweight, obesity, and diet-related non-communicable diseases (DR-NCDs) have been proposed as a way to effectively address malnutrition in all its forms in a more holisitic way. This Series paper identifies ten double-duty actions that have strong potential to reduce the risk of both undernutrition, obesity, and DR-NCDs. It does so by summarising evidence on common drivers of different forms of malnutrition; documenting examples of unintended harm caused by some undemutrition-focused programmes on obesity and DR-NCDs; and highlighting examples of double-duty actions to tackle multiple forms of malnutrition. We find that undernutrition, obesity, and DR-NCDs are intrinsically linked through early-life nutrition, diet diversity, food environments, and socioeconomic factors. Some evidence shows that programmes focused on undernutrition have raised risks of poor quality diets, obesity, and DR-NCDs, especially in countries undergoing a rapid nutrition transition. This Series paper builds on this evidence to develop a framework to guide the design of double-duty approaches and strategies, and defines the first steps needed to deliver them. With a clear package of double-duty actions now identified, there is an urgent need to move forward with double-duty actions to address malnutrition in all its forms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据