Systematically report and evaluate women's nutrition outcomes in research and program evaluation documents in low- and middle-income countries, including outcomes for adolescents, older women, and mothers (as opposed to reporting on women's nutrition as child nutrition outcomes alone). When possible, report and evaluate differences by setting (e.g., rural compared with urban) and socioeconomic status.
Women who are socially marginalized are more likely to die at younger ages than women who are not.[21] Women who have substance abuse disorders, who are homeless, who are sex workers, and/or who are imprisoned have significantly shorter lives than other women.[21] At any given age, women in these overlapping, stigmatized groups are approximately 10 to 13 times more likely to die than typical women of the same age.[21]

Adopting a plant-based diet could help tip the scales in your favor. A five-year study of 71,751 adults published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics found that vegetarians tend to be slimmer than meat-eaters even though both groups eat about the same number of calories daily. Researchers say it may be because carnivores consume more fatty acids and fewer weight-loss promoting nutrients, like fiber, than herbivores do. Go green to find out if it works for you.
To optimise women's control over pregnancy, it is essential that culturally appropriate contraceptive advice and means are widely, easily, and affordably available to anyone that is sexually active, including adolescents. In many parts of the world access to contraception and family planning services is very difficult or non existent and even in developed counties cultural and religious traditions can create barriers to access. Reported usage of adequate contraception by women has risen only slightly between 1990 and 2014, with considerable regional variability. Although global usage is around 55%, it may be as low as 25% in Africa. Worldwide 222 million women have no or limited access to contraception. Some caution is needed in interpreting available data, since contraceptive prevalence is often defined as "the percentage of women currently using any method of contraception among all women of reproductive age (i.e., those aged 15 to 49 years, unless otherwise stated) who are married or in a union. The “in-union” group includes women living with their partner in the same household and who are not married according to the marriage laws or customs of a country."[62] This definition is more suited to the more restrictive concept of family planning, but omits the contraceptive needs of all other women and girls who are or are likely to be sexually active, are at risk of pregnancy and are not married or "in-union".[37][63][58][59]
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.).
×