Table 1 Main characteristics of the studies included in the present review
Study | Country | Setting | Period of intervention | Sample size | Target population | SES categories |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interventions focused on disadvantaged populations | ||||||
Constante Jaime P, et al. 2006 [31] | Brazil | Community in Sao Paulo | 2006 | 36 households | Households in low SES district (Grajaú) | Number of household assets Schooling of household member responsible for purchasing and preparing food |
Lucumi DI, et al. 2006 [33] | Colombia | Neighborhoods in Bogota | 2006 | 97 women | Women in low SES neighborhoods | Low SES neighborhood participating in social programs |
White SC, et al. 2006 [34] | Panama, Trinidad and Tobago | Church groups, public clinics, community organizations | 2006 | 100 women | Low SES women | SES |
Vio F, et al. 2011 [32] | Chile | Health centers in Peñalolén community | 2011 | 480 women | Low SES women | Low SES: monthly household income <510 USD |
Interventions addressing the entire population | ||||||
Zammit N, et al. 2015 [36] | Tunisia | Clinical settings | 2010–2013 | Adults in 1000 households (1880 pre-intervention; 1977 post-intervention) | Communities from 16 districts | Low & middle SES/middle & high SES |
Bhiri S, et al. 2015 [37] | Tunisia | Workplaces | 2009–2014 | 3888 employees (1775 pre-assessment; 2113 post-assessment) | Governorate of Sousse | Low & middle SES employees, schooling and job position |
Sadeghi M, et al. 2011 [35] | Iran | Media, books, health centers and literacy centers | 2002–2007 | 10,586 women (6105 pre-intervention; 4481 post-intervention) | Working women and homemakers in three counties (Isfahan, Arak and Najafabad) | Job position |