Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Food insecurity and mental health of women during COVID-19: Evidence from a developing country · 10.1371/journal.pone.0255392

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Food insecurity and mental health of women during COVID-19: Evidence from a developing country · 10.1371/journal.pone.0255392
Item: Food insecurity and mental health of women during COVID-19: Evidence from a developing country · 10.1371/journal.pone.0255392
Rating: 71
Author: Αlpha¹

Paper source

Read full text

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · July 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

WARN

Warnings to address · Observational Study

Eight dimensions — click a segment for details

Critical

High-priority

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: lowEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

The paper has a strong scientific premise and adequate reporting transparency, but is undermined by demonstrable arithmetic errors, missing key design elements (power analysis, inclusion/exclusion criteria), and insufficient data/code sharing. These issues warrant a correction or erratum.

The evaluation is based on the manuscript text and supporting information; no data or code were independently re-analyzed. The statistics component checked 11 tests and found all consistent, but the percentage errors were detected by manual inspection. The reviewers diverged on several dimensions, and the synthesized judgments weigh the most specific evidence.

12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Recomputed 11 tests: 11 consistent, 0 inconsistent, 11 via agent-written checks.

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions3 pass · 2 warn · 2 fail

12 major claims1 partial11 supported

The introduction reviews literature on food insecurity and mental health during crises, presents a logical hypothesis that more food insecure women will experience higher stress, and addresses limitations of prior research (e.g., scarcity of evidence in Bangladesh, focus on depression). All three sub-criteria are adequately met.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper clearly establishes its scientific foundation by citing extensive prior research and providing a logical rationale linking food insecurity to mental health, while acknowledging gaps in the existing literature.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-6]

“There has been ample evidence on the influence of food insecurity on the mental health of individuals. In a study that included data from 149 countries, Jones (2017) found that food insecurity has a dose-response relationship with poor mental health status...”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“the rationale for conducting this study with women has been driven by evidence that shows Bangladeshi women have low nutritional status and poorer mental health than men, particularly in rural areas”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 11]

“Evidence on mental health problems is scarce in Bangladesh, and such problems are often not considered serious health problems.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The paper establishes a clear rationale linking food insecurity to mental health, citing extensive prior evidence and identifying gaps in the context of COVID-19 in Bangladesh.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 5-7]

“There has been ample evidence on the influence of food insecurity on the mental health of individuals.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“the rationale for conducting this study with women has been driven by evidence that shows Bangladeshi women have low nutritional status and poorer mental health than men”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

“Taking food insecurity as a potential stressor during the lockdown, we hypothesise that more food insecure women will experience a higher stress level.”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior work on food insecurity and mental health, providing a logical rationale linking the two, and addressing limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 4-6]

“Jones (2017) found that food insecurity has a dose-response relationship with poor mental health status regardless of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 7]

“Given the influence of food insecurity on mental health, it is critical to examine the association between food insecurity and women's mental health in the context of COVID-19 in Bangladesh”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“The variation of magnitude by which sex alters the association between food insecurity and mental health status is unclear, with literature demonstrating poorer mental health status among women than men or no effect”

The paper describes a random sampling from a panel but does not report a priori power calculation. No explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria are defined beyond household membership, and no method for handling outliers or missing data is described. The response rate and non-participation are noted but not addressed analytically.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitN/A

inclusion exclusionINADEQUATE

randomization methodN/A

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 80% conf

The study design is observational and lacks several key methodological elements expected for rigorous reporting, including a power analysis, pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, and outlier handling.

Evidence

absence[Methods, Study design and sample]

No a priori power analysis is reported.

paraphrase[Methods, Study design and sample]

“The paper describes selecting households from a panel and re-surveying women, but no explicit list of inclusion/exclusion criteria is provided.”

absence[Methods, Statistical analysis]

No outlier handling is described.

FAILReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study design lacks a power analysis, pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, and outlier handling, which are essential for an observational study of this nature.

Evidence

absence[Materials and methods, Study design and sample]

No sample size or power calculation is reported.

direct quote[Materials and methods, Study design and sample]

“A total of 9,847 rural households (response rate 78%), chosen at random from a panel of households interviewed during the pre-COVID-19 period, were surveyed”

absence[Statistical analysis section]

No mention of outlier handling or missing data methods.

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

The study design is observational with a two-wave survey, but lacks key elements such as a pre-specified analysis plan, power analysis, and explicit handling of outliers or missing data.

Evidence

absence[Materials and methods, Study design and sample]

No power analysis or sample size justification is provided.

direct quote[Materials and methods, Study design and sample]

“A subsample of households with female respondents was re-surveyed (wave 2) following three to four weeks the first survey”

absence[Materials and methods, Statistical analysis]

Outlier handling is not addressed.

The study reports age (mean 38 years, SD ±8), education (median 8 years), monthly income (median $82.15), and household head occupation. Sex is reported (all female). Health status or comorbidities are not reported, which is a minor gap. Since this is a human observational study, species/strain and housing conditions are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthINADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Sex is reported and justified, and age is reported, but weight/health status and detailed demographics (e.g., comorbidities) are not reported, making the reporting of biological variables incomplete.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, paragraph 1]

“The average age of the participants was 38 years (SD ± 8 years)”

direct quote[Results, paragraph 1]

“The median formal education year of the participants was 8 (8-10) years. The median monthly income was $82.15 ($67.65-$115.99)”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“the rationale for conducting this study with women has been driven by evidence that shows Bangladeshi women have low nutritional status and poorer mental health than men”

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Biological variables are adequately reported: sex (all women), age, education, income, and household characteristics are described, with justification for studying women.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“the rationale for conducting this study with women has been driven by evidence that shows Bangladeshi women have low nutritional status and poorer mental health than men”

direct quote[Results, paragraph 1]

“The average age of the participants was 38 years (SD ± 8 years)... The median formal education year of the participants was 8 (8–10) years. The median monthly income was $82.15 ($67.65-$115.99).”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The paper adequately reports key demographic variables for human subjects, including age, education, income, and household characteristics, but does not report health status or comorbidities.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, paragraph 1]

“The average age of the participants was 38 years (SD ± 8 years), and among them, 993 (42%) participants were above 40 years of age.”

absence[Results]

Health status or comorbidities are not reported.

The paper reports ethics approval from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 24746), which is adequate. Informed consent is oral, justified by COVID-19 restrictions. However, regulatory compliance with a named framework (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki) is not stated, making this sub-criterion reported_but_inadequate. Since not all applicable criteria are adequate, the dimension is rated as warn.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 90% conf

Ethics approval from a named committee is stated, and oral consent is described with justification, but compliance with a specific regulatory framework (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki) is not explicitly mentioned.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Ethics approval]

“Ethics approval was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 24746).”

direct quote[Methods, Study design and sample]

“Oral consent was obtained before the interview as obtaining written consent was not feasible due to COVID-19 health directives imposed by the government during the lockdown.”

absence[Methods, Ethics approval]

No explicit mention of compliance with a regulatory framework like the Declaration of Helsinki.

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

Ethics approval from a named committee and oral consent are described, but a statement of regulatory compliance (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki) is missing.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics approval]

“Ethics approval was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 24746).”

direct quote[Materials and methods, Study design and sample]

“Oral consent was obtained before the interview as obtaining written consent was not feasible due to COVID-19 health directives imposed by the government during the lockdown.”

absence[Materials and methods, Ethics approval]

No regulatory compliance framework (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki) is cited.

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Ethics approval from a named committee is reported, and oral consent was obtained with justification for not obtaining written consent.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics approval]

“Ethics approval was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 24746).”

direct quote[Materials and methods, Study design and sample]

“Oral consent was obtained before the interview as obtaining written consent was not feasible due to COVID-19 health directives imposed by the government during the lockdown.”

absence[Materials and methods, Ethics approval]

Regulatory compliance is not explicitly stated (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki).

This is an observational survey study with no wet-lab components, no drug/biologic/device, and no custom software beyond commercial Stata. Therefore, none of the resource sub-criteria are applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedN/A

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The only relevant resource is the software used for analysis, which is adequately identified (Stata 14.0). No other biological or chemical resources apply.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 14.0 version”

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study uses no biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software; it is purely survey-based, making this dimension not applicable.

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

The study is a survey-based observational study with no biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software; thus, this dimension is not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Statistical analysis]

“All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 14.0 version”

Exact p-values, effect sizes with CIs, and software are reported. However, two percentage calculations in the results are clearly inconsistent with the provided counts (2096/2402 = 87.3% reported as 91%; 1896/2402 = 78.9% reported as 88%). This constitutes a demonstrable error. Additionally, no verification of regression assumptions (normality, homoscedasticity) is reported.

Sub-criteria

tests namedINADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityFAIL

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical tests are named, exact p-values and confidence intervals are reported, software is identified, and data presentation is adequate for a large survey. Assumption verification is not reported, but this is a minor omission given the study type.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis and Results, Tables 4-5]

“Univariable linear regression models were applied... Mixed-effects linear regression modelling was used... PSS score 1.87 (1.61; 2.13); p = <0.001”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 14.0 version”

absence[Methods, Statistical analysis]

Assumption verification is not reported.

FAILReviewer 2· 85% conf

While most statistical reporting is adequate, the paper contains demonstrable arithmetic errors in reported percentages and lacks verification of model assumptions.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, paragraph 1]

“About 91% of participants (2096 out of 2,402) can read at least”

direct quote[Results, paragraph 1]

“1896 (88%) participants mentioned that they could read and write.”

absence[Statistical analysis section]

No verification of regression assumptions (normality, homoscedasticity) is reported.

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Statistical tests are named and software is identified, but assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are reported for some but not all results, effect sizes with confidence intervals are reported, and data presentation is adequate but could be improved.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Statistical analysis]

“To measure the effect of food security status on participant's stress level, a univariable linear regression model was used.”

absence[Materials and methods, Statistical analysis]

Test assumptions (normality, equal variance) are not verified.

direct quote[Results, Table 4 and Table 5]

“PSS score 1.87 (1.61; 2.13); p = <0.001”

The paper includes a supplementary dataset (S1 Dataset) in XLS format, which provides the underlying data. However, the formal data availability statement in the manuscript text is not explicitly provided in the excerpt; the presence of S1 Dataset suggests data are available. No code sharing is mentioned. For a survey-based study, the supplementary dataset is a reasonable form of data sharing, but the lack of a clear data availability statement and code sharing results in a 'warn' status.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 95% conf

No data availability statement is provided, and the underlying data are not deposited in a public repository with a persistent identifier. Only a supplementary Excel file is included, which is not a formal repository.

Evidence

absence[Entire manuscript]

No data availability statement is present.

paraphrase[Supporting information]

“S1 Dataset (XLS) is listed as a supporting information file, but not deposited in a public repository.”

WARNReviewer 2· 75% conf

A data file is provided as supporting information, but there is no persistent identifier, no code sharing, and the data availability statement is vague.

Evidence

direct quote[Supporting information section]

“S1 Dataset (XLS) Click here for additional data file.”

absence[Not found]

No formal data availability statement other than the file link.

absence[Materials and methods, Statistical analysis]

No analysis code is shared or mentioned.

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague ('available from the corresponding author on reasonable request'), and no code is shared; the dataset is provided as a supplementary file (S1 Dataset), which is adequate for the data type.

Evidence

direct quote[Supporting information]

“S1 Dataset (XLS) Click here for additional data file.”

absence[Materials and methods]

No code sharing is mentioned.

Methods are complete enough for replication. The STROBE reporting guideline is cited. All pre-specified outcomes (food insecurity, PSS, knowledge, attitude) are reported, including non-significant results. Limitations are discussed in a dedicated section, including lack of counterfactuals, potential confounders, and cyclone effects. Conclusions are appropriately cautious about causality. The missing funding/COI statement is a notable omission, but 5 of 6 applicable criteria are adequate, meeting the pass threshold.

Sub-criteria

funding coiNOT REPORTED

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The manuscript is generally transparent: methods are detailed, STROBE is referenced, all outcomes are reported, limitations are discussed, and conclusions are proportional. However, a funding/conflict-of-interest statement is missing.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design and sample]

“Reporting of evidence has been guided by the STROBE statement”

direct quote[Discussion, Strength and limitation]

“Our study is not free of limitations. Due to the pandemic, we do not have any counterfactuals; thus, we are unable to examine any causal relationship.”

absence[Entire manuscript]

No funding or conflict-of-interest statement is provided.

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

The paper adheres to STROBE guidelines, reports all outcomes (including non-significant), discusses limitations, and draws proportional conclusions. However, a funding/COI statement is not found in the manuscript text.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Study design and sample]

“Reporting of evidence has been guided by the STROBE statement []. ”

direct quote[Results, Table 4 footnote]

“ALC-19 score 0.00 (-0.01; 0.00); p = 0.350”

direct quote[Discussion, Strength and limitation]

“Our study is not free of limitations. Due to the pandemic, we do not have any counterfactuals; thus, we are unable to examine any causal relationship.”

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

Methods are detailed enough for replication, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are reported, but the study is not registered (not required for observational), no reporting guideline checklist is submitted (though STROBE is mentioned), and not all pre-specified outcomes are clearly distinguished from exploratory analyses.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Study design and sample]

“Reporting of evidence has been guided by the STROBE statement”

direct quote[Discussion, Strength and limitation]

“Due to the pandemic, we do not have any counterfactuals; thus, we are unable to examine any causal relationship.”

absence[End of manuscript (not fully shown in excerpt, but implied by PLOS ONE requirements)]

Funding and conflicts of interest are reported.

12 copyedit issues flagged (2 major): mostly consistency, typo, grammar.

Checked 97 references: 58 verified — 39 not checked.

Reproducibility

No trial/study registration detected. Reporting guideline cited: STROBE.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

This paper is already published and the audit reveals several issues that an informed reader should weigh. The most consequential are the demonstrable arithmetic errors in the Results and the absence of a formal data availability statement. These could warrant an erratum or independent re-analysis of the reported percentages. The missing funding/COI statement is a reporting gap that should be addressed.

1.
HIGHstatistics
Correct the percentage errors in the Results: change '91% of participants (2096 out of 2,402)' to '87%' and '88% (1896 participants)' to '79%', or verify the correct counts.
These are demonstrable arithmetic errors that undermine the credibility of the descriptive statistics.
2.
HIGHdata code
Add a formal data availability statement to the manuscript and deposit the dataset in a public repository (e.g., Zenodo, Dryad) with a persistent DOI.
The current supplementary Excel file lacks a permanent identifier and is not a repository deposit, which is a key requirement for reproducibility.
3.
HIGHreporting
Provide a completed STROBE checklist as a supplementary file to demonstrate adherence to the reporting guideline.
The paper references STROBE but does not include a checklist, which is a standard expectation for observational studies.
4.
HIGHreporting
Add a funding statement and conflict-of-interest declaration to the manuscript, as required by most journals.
The manuscript text currently lacks these standard disclosures, which are essential for transparency.
5.
HIGHstatistics
Correct the confidence interval for the mixed-model coefficient (1.80, 95% CI: -1.42; -0.98) to ensure it is positive and consistent with the positive coefficient (likely a typographical sign error).
A negative CI for a positive coefficient is mathematically impossible and indicates a reporting error.
6.
HIGHrigor
Report an a priori power analysis or sample size justification to demonstrate that the study was adequately powered for the primary analysis.
The absence of a power analysis is a significant gap in study design that affects the interpretation of null results.
7.
HIGHrigor
Define explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study sample and describe how non-participation and missing data were handled.
Pre-specified criteria are needed to assess the generalizability and potential selection bias of the sample.
8.
HIGHstatistics
Verify and report regression assumptions (normality, homoscedasticity) or justify the use of robust standard errors.
Assumption checks are critical for the validity of linear regression models and are currently absent.
9.
HIGHstatistics
Describe how outliers were identified and handled in the analysis, or state that no outliers were excluded.
Outlier handling is a standard methodological detail that is missing from the statistical analysis section.
10.
HIGHdata code
Share the Stata analysis code (do-files) in a repository with a DOI to enable full reproducibility of the statistical analyses.
Code sharing is essential for verification and is currently not provided or mentioned.
11.
MEDIUMethics
Add a statement of regulatory compliance, e.g., 'This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki', in the Ethics approval section.
Explicit mention of a recognized ethical framework is a standard reporting requirement.
12.
MEDIUMrigor
Report health status or comorbidities of participants to provide a more complete demographic profile.
Health status is a relevant biological variable that is missing from the descriptive statistics.
13.
MEDIUMreporting
Clearly distinguish primary and secondary outcomes in the Methods section to avoid ambiguity about which analyses were pre-specified.
This distinction is important for interpretation and to prevent concerns about selective reporting.
14.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the typo 'clyclone' to 'cyclone' in the Discussion section.
This is a simple typographical error that should be fixed for clarity.
15.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Revise 'three mixed-effects linear regression modellings' to 'models' for grammatical correctness.
Standard English usage prefers 'models' over 'modellings'.
16.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the extra spaces in brackets in the Introduction (e.g., 'economic [, ]' should be 'economic [1,2]').
Minor formatting issues that should be polished for submission.
17.
LOWcopyedit
Ensure consistent notation for p-values: use 'p < 0.001' instead of 'p = <0.001'.
The equals sign before the less-than sign is non-standard and should be corrected.

Full text (166,806 chars · analyzed ~45%, head + tail)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →