| Sumario: | The global nutrition and food security crisis, characterised by troubling trends in various forms of malnutrition ranging from hunger to obesity, has significantly worsened [1,2]. In 2021 and 2022, nearly one-third of the global population faced moderate to severe food insecurity, underscoring a persistent challenge in accessing healthy and sustainable diets [1,3]. This decline in diet quality has led to a surge in malnutrition, with obesity and diet-related noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) reaching epidemic proportions [4–6].
Despite the implementation of numerous nutrition policies and interventions, many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to grapple with food and nutrition security issues, posing a significant threat to vulnerable populations [3,7]. Food insecurity is particularly evident among the poor, with women and children in rural areas being the most affected [1,2,8]. In 2022 alone, an alarming 230 million children under the age of five experienced some form of malnutrition. Specifically, 148 million (22.3%) were stunted, 45 million (6.8%) were wasted, and 37 million (5.6%) were overweight [1,9,10]. Stunting and wasting were more prevalent in rural areas, while overweight was somewhat more common in urban settings. In Ethiopia, the latest national survey showed that 37% of children under five were stunted, 11% were wasted, and 22% were underweight [11].
Evidence-based approaches and effective programming are essential in tackling these persistent nutrition challenges and improving outcomes. These methods address policy gaps and are cost-effective in resource-poor settings. Recognising the importance of evidence-based policy, driven by political and accountability demands, helps raise awareness and guide decision-making through multisectoral collaboration. However, more evidence does not always mean better policies, as cognitive and institutional factors can hinder effective use. Emphasising knowledge translation in nutrition research is crucial [12], yet many studies focus only on policy formulation, neglecting the systematic analysis of implementation. This highlights the need to address the impact of research on policy and programme execution.
|
|---|