Community health posts and home visits provided a platform to make health care services more accessible (109, 110, 124). Community-based platforms for the delivery of health services included community center and home visits from community health workers, mobile clinics, community support groups, mobile phones, and mass media campaigns (105, 110). Community-based services were effective in reducing maternal mortality and managing HIV (106). However, 1 review found that community-based interventions were only effective in reducing maternal morbidity and not mortality (107, 110). In high-income settings, community-based services were associated with hypertension and diabetes management, and cervical and breast cancer screening (106). We found no references for the use of community-based integrated care to address women's nutrition in low- and middle-income settings. It could be an effective way to reach older women and women of reproductive age who do not regularly engage with health centers. For children, community-based services were effective in improving health outcomes, particularly among the poorest wealth quintiles (13, 110). More research is needed on the potential of community-based services to reduce inequities in delivery of care to women in different settings and across different socioeconomic statuses.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) food pyramid system (www.mypyramid.gov) provides a good start by recommending that the bulk of your diet come from the grain group—this includes bread, cereal, rice and pasta— the vegetable group; and the fruit group. Select smaller amounts of foods from the milk group and the meat and beans group. Eat few—if any—foods that are high in fat and sugars and low in nutrients. The amount of food you should consume depends on your sex, age and level of activity.

Manson, JoAnn E.; Chlebowski, Rowan T.; Stefanick, Marcia L.; Aragaki, Aaron K.; Rossouw, Jacques E.; Prentice, Ross L.; Anderson, Garnet; Howard, Barbara V.; Thomson, Cynthia A.; LaCroix, Andrea Z.; Wactawski-Wende, Jean; Jackson, Rebecca D.; Limacher, Marian; Margolis, Karen L.; Wassertheil-Smoller, Sylvia; Beresford, Shirley A.; Cauley, Jane A.; Eaton, Charles B.; Gass, Margery; Hsia, Judith; Johnson, Karen C.; Kooperberg, Charles; Kuller, Lewis H.; Lewis, Cora E.; Liu, Simin; Martin, Lisa W.; Ockene, Judith K.; O'sullivan, Mary Jo; Powell, Lynda H.; Simon, Michael S.; Van Horn, Linda; Vitolins, Mara Z.; Wallace, Robert B. (2 October 2013). "Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Health Outcomes During the Intervention and Extended Poststopping Phases of the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trials". JAMA. 310 (13): 1353–1368. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.278040. PMC 3963523. PMID 24084921.
Changes in the way research ethics was visualised in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials (1946), led to an atmosphere of protectionism of groups deemed to be vulnerable that was often legislated or regulated. This resulted in the relative underrepresentation of women in clinical trials. The position of women in research was further compromised in 1977, when in response to the tragedies resulting from thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol (DES), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibited women of child-bearing years from participation in early stage clinical trials. In practice this ban was often applied very widely to exclude all women.[151][152] Women, at least those in the child-bearing years, were also deemed unsuitable research subjects due to their fluctuating hormonal levels during the menstrual cycle. However, research has demonstrated significant biological differences between the sexes in rates of susceptibility, symptoms and response to treatment in many major areas of health, including heart disease and some cancers. These exclusions pose a threat to the application of evidence-based medicine to women, and compromise to care offered to both women and men.[6][153]
×