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.).
The impact of income-generation interventions on women's nutrition has not been sufficiently evaluated. Income-generating interventions were associated with increases in women's income, empowerment, and household decision-making (161, 164–166). However, these gains were often at the expense of more work for women (5). Income-generation interventions have been associated with increased food-related expenditures, improved household food security, and greater household dietary diversity (160, 161, 165–168). Income-generating interventions targeting adolescents improved their social status; however, these showed no impact on their access to food, nor on individual and household food security (169). There was also limited evidence of impacts of income-generating interventions on women's anthropometric and biochemical nutrition outcomes (5, 169, 170). Increased income was associated with reductions in maternal underweight and anemia, but the reductions were modest (171). Studies suggested that the limited impact was related to continued poor access to health services (167), poor measurement, and the need for longer evaluation periods (164, 165, 167, 169).
If motivation is your hang-up, change your exercise routine every 14 days. A University of Florida study discovered that people who modified their workouts twice a month were more likely than to stick to their plans compared to those who changed their regimens whenever they wanted to. Boredom didn’t appear to be a factor; it seems people simply enjoyed the variety more.