The Journal of nutrition · 2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Food Fortification for Reducing Global Malnutrition: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Across 63 Countries.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cogo Elise, Pelone Ferruccio, Pachón Helena, Buckley Brian, Christou Maria, Villanueva Gemma, Woldt Monica, Henschke Nicholas, Tsang Becky L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fortification, the addition of essential micronutrients during food processing, reduces mortality and malnutrition.
OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively synthesize global evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) and economic benefits of food fortification.
METHODS: We employed systematic review methodology, searching 6 databases to January 2024. Eligible studies included economic analyses comparing staple food postharvest micronutrient fortification to no fortification. Quality appraisal used Philips' modeling framework. We converted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to 2022 US$, and synthesized the data overall and by micronutrient. For illustration, findings were also categorized by "hypothetical" CE thresholds based on common example percentages of gross domestic product per capita (GDP pc) per country.
RESULTS: After screening 6,425 abstracts, 56 studies in 66 reports were included, reporting >200 analyses. Sixty-three countries were represented, including >40 low- and middle-income economies (LMICs). Most frequent interventions were as follows: vitamin A, folic acid, iron, and iodine added to cereal grains/products (e.g., flours), oils, and condiments (e.g., sugar, salt). Models were heterogeneous and employed various perspectives. Most evaluations (58%; 135/232) had ICERs < $150 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted (or healthy life year gained). We found 87% (201/232) overall were within a hypothetical CE threshold of "50% GDP pc". With an example "35% GDP pc" level among LMICs, 84% (190/227) were estimated to be cost-effective, and 71% (37/52) were < "20% GDP pc" among low-income countries. Additionally, 6 out of 8 cost-utility studies' ICERs were dominant. Moreover, 47 total unique benefit-cost ratios found benefits outweighed costs, median 8·7:1 (range 1·50:1 to 100·6:1).
CONCLUSIONS: Food fortification programs are likely cost-effective in the majority of contexts. Although CE evaluations are specific to local factors and methodology, this research can assist with evidence-informed decision-making for global health policy and priority setting, particularly in resource-constrained economies.
STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023493795.
OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively synthesize global evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) and economic benefits of food fortification.
METHODS: We employed systematic review methodology, searching 6 databases to January 2024. Eligible studies included economic analyses comparing staple food postharvest micronutrient fortification to no fortification. Quality appraisal used Philips' modeling framework. We converted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to 2022 US$, and synthesized the data overall and by micronutrient. For illustration, findings were also categorized by "hypothetical" CE thresholds based on common example percentages of gross domestic product per capita (GDP pc) per country.
RESULTS: After screening 6,425 abstracts, 56 studies in 66 reports were included, reporting >200 analyses. Sixty-three countries were represented, including >40 low- and middle-income economies (LMICs). Most frequent interventions were as follows: vitamin A, folic acid, iron, and iodine added to cereal grains/products (e.g., flours), oils, and condiments (e.g., sugar, salt). Models were heterogeneous and employed various perspectives. Most evaluations (58%; 135/232) had ICERs < $150 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted (or healthy life year gained). We found 87% (201/232) overall were within a hypothetical CE threshold of "50% GDP pc". With an example "35% GDP pc" level among LMICs, 84% (190/227) were estimated to be cost-effective, and 71% (37/52) were < "20% GDP pc" among low-income countries. Additionally, 6 out of 8 cost-utility studies' ICERs were dominant. Moreover, 47 total unique benefit-cost ratios found benefits outweighed costs, median 8·7:1 (range 1·50:1 to 100·6:1).
CONCLUSIONS: Food fortification programs are likely cost-effective in the majority of contexts. Although CE evaluations are specific to local factors and methodology, this research can assist with evidence-informed decision-making for global health policy and priority setting, particularly in resource-constrained economies.
STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023493795.