2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A review of the prevalence, trends, and determinants of coexisting forms of malnutrition in neonates, infants, and children

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Coexisting Forms of Malnutrition (CFM) refers to the presence of more than one type of nutritional disorder in an individual. Worldwide, CFM affects more than half of all malnourished children, and compared to standalone forms of malnutrition, CFM is associated with a higher risk of illness and death. This review examined published literature for assessing the prevalence, trends, and determinants of CFM in neonates, infants, and children.

          Methods

          A review of community-based observational studies was conducted. Seven databases, (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were used in December-2021 to retrieve literature. Google, Google Scholar and TROVE were used to search for grey literature. Key stakeholders were also contacted for unpublished documents. Studies measuring the prevalence, and/or trends, and/or determinants of CFM presenting in individuals were included. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools for prevalence and longitudinal studies.

          Results

          The search retrieved 14,207 articles, of which 24 were included in this review. The prevalence of CFM varied by geographical area and specific types. In children under 5 years, the coexistence of stunting with overweight/obesity ranged from 0.8% in the United States to over 10% in Ukraine and Syria, while the prevalence of coexisting wasting with stunting ranged from 0.1% in most of the South American countries to 9.2% in Niger. A decrease in CFM prevalence was observed in all countries, except Indonesia. Studies in China and Indonesia showed a positive association between rurality of residence and coexisting stunting with overweight/obesity. Evidence for other risk and protective factors for CFM is too minimal or conflicting to be conclusive.

          Conclusion

          Evidence regarding the prevalence, determinants and trends for CFM is scarce. Apart from the coexistence of stunting with overweight/obesity, the determinants of other types of CFM are unclear. CFM in any form results in an increased risk of health adversities which can be different from comparable standalone forms, thus, there is an urgent need to explore the determinants and distribution of different types of CFM.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13098-9.

          Related collections

          Most cited references78

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries

            The Lancet, 382(9890), 427-451
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                asif.khaliq@hdr.qut.edu.au
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                3 May 2022
                3 May 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 879
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.1024.7, ISNI 0000000089150953, School of Public Health and Social Work, , Queensland University of Technology, ; Brisbane, 4059 Australia
                [2 ]GRID grid.1024.7, ISNI 0000000089150953, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, , Queensland University of Technology, ; Brisbane, 4059 Australia
                Article
                13098
                10.1186/s12889-022-13098-9
                9063291
                35505427
                cf2c801b-f7dc-4d98-b6ae-a1267f6faa43
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 9 June 2021
                : 22 March 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Public health
                anthropometry,child,coexisting,malnutrition,measurement
                Public health
                anthropometry, child, coexisting, malnutrition, measurement

                Comments

                Comment on this article