Our review highlighted how a focus on delivery platforms could indicate who is missed by different nutrition interventions, by evaluating where there is overlap or divergence in where interventions are delivered (as represented in the Venn diagram in Figure 1). Our findings showed that a large proportion of nutrition-specific interventions were delivered at clinic-based settings or community-based health posts. Health centers are important delivery platforms, particularly for pregnant and lactating women (113, 210). However, only half of women worldwide even attend the appropriate number of antenatal care visits (with nearly 86% of women attending 1 visit) and only 59% receive appropriate postnatal care (211). Other delivery platforms, such as schools and universities, were more effective at reaching some adolescents and women of reproductive age. However, interventions delivered at “facilities” (schools, health clinics, health posts) require participation with those facilities, and participation is often limited because of time, costs, distance, and other responsibilities, including work and childcare (116). Facilities-based care is also more likely to miss certain groups, including older women.
Nutrition-sensitive approaches are difficult to link to women's nutritional status (5, 102). This is due to limited measurement of benefits to program beneficiaries, families, households, and communities, limited timeframes to evaluate long-term impact, logistical and political realities that make implementation difficult, and different priorities of different stakeholders in multisectoral programs (102). Many nutrition-sensitive approaches, as will be described, thus focus on more distal measures of impact (e.g., coverage, knowledge) and not more proximal measures of women's nutritional status (e.g., BMI, anemia status, etc.).