4.7 Review

Plant-Based Dietary Practices and Socioeconomic Factors That Influence Anemia in India

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13103538

关键词

anemia; diet; fortification; India; iron bioavailability; iron deficiency; management; socioeconomic status

资金

  1. Tata-Cornell Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition, Cornell University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although malnutrition rates have decreased in India over the past decade due to government interventions, anemia prevalence remains high. The high prevalence is not solely attributed to iron deficiency, as staple foods rich in iron are poorly absorbed due to phytates. Iron supplementation is the common intervention, but its effectiveness is limited by low compliance and irregular supplies.
While rates of malnutrition have declined over the last decade in India due to successful government interventions, the prevalence of anemia remains high. Staple foods provide almost 70% of the daily iron intake. As staple foods are a rich source of phytate, this ingested iron is poorly absorbed. Currently, 59% of children below 3 years of age, 50% of expectant mothers and 53% of women aged 15-19 years are anemic. The most common intervention strategy has been through the use of iron supplements. While the compliance has been low and supplies irregular, such high rates of anemia cannot be explained by iron deficiency alone. This review attempts to fit dietary and cooking practices, field-level diagnostics, cultural beliefs and constraints in implementation of management strategies into a larger picture scenario to offer insights as to why anemia continues to plague India. Since the rural Indian diet is predominantly vegetarian, we also review dietary factors that influence non-heme iron absorption. As a reference point, we also contrast anemia-related trends in India to the U.S.A. Thus, this review is an effort to convey a holistic evaluation while providing approaches to address this public health crisis.

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

4.7
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