Food Security Interventions among Refugees around the Globe: A Scoping Review

There are 26 million refugees globally, with as many as 80% facing food insecurity irrespective of location. Food insecurity results in malnutrition beginning at an early age and disproportionately affects certain groups such as women. Food security is a complex issue and must consider gender, policies, social and cultural contexts that refugees face. Our aim is to assess what is known about food security interventions in refugees and identify existing gaps in knowledge. This scoping review followed the guidelines set out in the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. We included all articles that discussed food security interventions in refugees published between 2010 and 2020. A total of 57 articles were eligible for this study with most interventions providing cash, vouchers, or food transfers; urban agriculture, gardening, animal husbandry, or foraging; nutrition education; and infant and young child feeding. Urban agriculture and nutrition education were more prevalent in destination countries. While urban agriculture was a focus of the FAO and cash/voucher interventions were implemented by the WFP, the level of collaboration between UN agencies was unclear. Food security was directly measured in 39% of studies, half of which used the UN’s Food Consumption Score, and the remainder using a variety of methods. As substantiated in the literature, gender considerations are vital to the success of food security interventions, and although studies include this in the planning process, few see gender considerations through to implementation. Including host communities in food security interventions improves the refugee–host relationship. Collaboration should be encouraged among aid organizations. To assess intervention efficacy, food security should be measured with a consistent tool. With the number of refugees in the world continuing to rise, further efforts are required to transition from acute aid to sustainability through livelihood strategies.


Introduction
There are 26 million refugees ("someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion" [1]) around the world (approximately 50% are children) along with another 45.7 million internally displaced people ("[those who] have not crossed a border to find safety. Unlike refugees, they are on the run at home" [2]) and 4.2 million asylum seekers ("someone whose request for sanctuary has yet to be processed" [3]) [4]. The top source countries of refugees as of 2020 include Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar [4]. While some refugees reside in camps, the vast majority live in makeshift cities and host communities in neighbouring countries, where rising tensions have been reported [5]. Some refugees are build the gap between market demand and refugee skills, considering gender and other social and cultural contexts [26].
In resettlement countries, food security remains an issue. Migrants find cultural foods expensive, hard to obtain, and although people often have cooking skills, the unfamiliarity of new foods and how to prepare them pose challenges [19]. Refugees are provided aid for a short period of time, but many barriers such as language and lack of recognition of education from their home country makes it difficult to land jobs that pay well. For example, preliminary data indicates that 70% of Syrian refugees in Canada experience food insecurity [27].
Many countries around the world are welcoming refugees and donating money towards helping those in need. For example, United Nations Agencies and nongovernmental organization (NGO) partners pledged $5.5 billion USD to assist Syrian refugees in 2020 [28]. With the numbers of refugees continuing to rise year after year, we need to review how we are helping these vulnerable people. Therefore, it is important to assess the types of food security interventions and identify the gaps in research to inform future programming to maximize efficiency of resources and help the largest number of people by the greatest extent possible.

Objectives
The objective of this scoping review is to assess what is known about food security interventions in refugees and identify existing gaps in knowledge.
Although our ultimate interest is refugees, interventions aimed towards other populations such as asylum seekers and displaced persons would be similar and so were also included. Interventions included formal interventions from research and humanitarian aid agencies such as cash and food transfers, food vouchers, urban agriculture, community gardens and kitchens. We are interested in knowing what interventions are most successful for refugees. We know that Community Based Participatory Research should be prioritized for successful interventions, placing the population of interest at the core, and engaging them throughout the entire research process. Therefore, we also included informal interventions implemented by refugees themselves such as the development of informal economies ("the diversified set of economic activities, enterprises, jobs, and workers that are not regulated or protected by the state... [including] wage employment in unprotected jobs" [29]). Although we are interested in which interventions are most successful, we also need to know what has been attempted with minimal to no success. Therefore, instead of only including successful interventions, we included all interventions. Refugee food security is a global issue, thus our review includes interventions from all countries, keeping in mind that different types of interventions will be observed according to where the country is along the migration process, from point of entry countries to transit countries, to final destination countries.

Methods
This scoping review followed the guidelines set out in the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018) article [30].

Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion criteria for this scoping review included any article that discussed a food security intervention in refugees. Articles were excluded if they were published prior to 2010, were not available in the English language, were not about food security interventions in refugees, or were exploratory studies, protocol or framework papers, conference abstracts, or review articles. For articles published by UN agencies, only those with an accompanying evaluation were included to incorporate a measure of effectiveness of interventions.

Information Sources and Selection
The search was executed on 29 June 2020 in Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, Public Health Databases, SCOPUS, and CABI Abstracts Global Health (from Web of Science). The search strategies were developed in consultation with the research team and a librarian experienced in scoping reviews. A sample search strategy from Ovid MEDLINE can be found in Supplementary Table S1: Sample search strategy. Search results were exported to EndNote X9 3.3 and duplicates removed [31]. Articles published from 2010 to 2020 were scanned in the Journal of Refugee Studies, the Journal of Immigration and Refugee Studies, and the Emergency Nutrition Network. The reference lists of all included studies were scanned for articles published from 2010 to 2020 that met the eligibility criteria. Grey literature was also included by scanning United Nations (UN) websites including the UNHCR, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), the World Food Programme of the UN (WFP), and the World Health Organization. The titles and abstracts were scanned for eligibility criteria by authors CNN and KEL while any disagreements were discussed amongst all authors (CNN, KEL, and HAV) until consensus was reached.

Data Charting Process and Data Items
A form was developed in Microsoft Excel to extract all necessary details from the included articles: study location, study design (sample sizes at the household/family level vs. individual level and in the intervention vs. evaluation including pre and post), food security measurement tool, participants (age and gender), whether or not the intervention considers gender and any other at-risk groups, outcomes/important results, and limitations. Authors CNN and KEL charted the data and updated the form in an iterative process.

Synthesis of Results
Results are presented using a series of tables and figures to best depict the different results.

Selection and Characteristics of Sources of Evidence
The removal of duplicates left a total of 4134 citations from electronic databases, journal scans, and reference list searches. Scanning titles and abstracts based on the eligibility criteria outlined above resulted in the exclusion of 4001 articles. We then went through 133 full text articles, whereby another 76 were excluded for not being about refugees or not distinguishing refugees from other population groups (e.g., immigrants), not including an intervention (cross-sectional, exploratory, simulation), or being a review, opinion, or policy. Therefore, a total of 57 articles were eligible for this study ( Figure 1). Table 1 is organized by the first author's last name and provides details on the characteristics of all included articles including aim, study design, and outcomes. We examined articles by location and found that 32% targeted refugee camps and/or settlements, 19% were outside camps, 26% were both inside and outside camps, one article did not specify, and 21% were in destination countries ( Figure 2). We also found that 67% of interventions targeted refugees only, while 33% targeted both refugees and host communities. Only 47% of the articles indicated a consideration for gender when designing and implementing the interventions (i.e., programs were targeted specifically to women and/or women were prioritized by being provided e-transfers to manage household expenses or given roles to oversee food distribution). Few studies mentioned other at-risk populations such as children not covered by IYCF programs, the elderly and persons with disabilities. None of the studies mentioned LGBTQIA2S+. We found that 26% used a mixture of cash, vouchers, or food transfers for the intervention while another 11% were cash only interventions and 2% were voucher only. We also found that 28% of interventions were on urban agriculture, gardening, animal husbandry, or foraging; 12% on a combination of nutrition education type interventions; 12% on infant and young child feeding; 4% focused solely on schoolbased nutrition; 2% on community kitchens specifically; 2% on food safety and energy; and 2% on informal economy/trading ( Figure 3). Table 2 is organized by location and provides details on the emerging themes from our results including location, target population, intervention type, consideration for gender, and food security measurement tool. Results indicated that 55% of interventions in nondestination countries were led by UN agencies of which 64% involved cash and/or vouchers; 20% used urban agriculture, gardening, and animal husbandry; and 16% were on infant and young child feeding and pregnancy. For destination countries, one was in Canada, one in Germany, two in Australia, and eight in the USA (Figure 4). All seven of the nutrition education interventions took place in destination countries, representing 58% of the destination country interventions. The other interventions in destination countries involved urban agriculture (25%), infant and young child feeding and pregnancy (8%), and cash (8%).  Minorly alleviated underweight or hunger. Crop production, cultivation low; 67% ↑ availability of fresh food, fruit/veg intake; diet diversity. 29% satisfied: 61% lacked water, 56% ↓ production than expected, 53% limited inputs, 17% unable to produce types of plants wanted, 10% intending to sell products did not-low production.
Dunlop K, 2018; Greece, all [23] Enhance the wellbeing of Persons of Concern in Greece through access to protection-based and multi-sectorial humanitarian assistance.
Mixed methods. Eval outcomes: persons of concern can meet basic needs safely with dignity, choice; relationships with host communities improve. Combat physical and mental health conditions that accompany migration by developing a community coalition to implement a community garden with apartment-dwelling refugees.
Recruitment: community liaison, snowballing. Coalition: fidelity in process, satisfaction. Garden: fidelity to construction, participation, satisfaction. Seeds provided, gardeners contributed tools, attended planting/training day.
Gardens assessed through season, advice available.
More veggies consumed, most donated some of their garden, some liked not having to go to the store, all wanted a larger plot of land to garden. Two refugee residents observing community garden plots expressed interest in larger-scale urban farming. Examine gardening as part of the food environment of African refugees.
Qualitative study using in-depth interviews and a questionnaire on socio-demographics. Resettled African refugees who engaged in home and community gardening and spoke English or Swahili were recruited using purposive sampling. Review model chosen to deliver cash, identify themes of change for recipients. Common Cash Facility (CCF): platform for delivering cash, provides orgs direct, equal access to common financial service provider, payment facility.
By 2016, CCF delivered >90% of cash to refugees outside camps in Jordan. Eval: efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coverage, accountability, innovation using data from post-distribution monitoring surveys on usage patterns, effectiveness of cash, recipient satisfaction. Unclear.
Goh J, 2017; Germany, Munich [51] Use unconditional cash transfers to ↑ knowledge of refugee spending patterns to help aid orgs create more effective programs.
Distributed €60 to each social welfare participant to spend without limitations over ten days. Participants were divided into 3 monthly income levels: <€275, €275-€400, and >€400.  [62] Promote healthful cooking skill development, enhance family mealtime, ↑ physical activity through reciprocal role and behavioral modeling in Sub-Saharan Africans.
Community-based cultural adaptation of iCook 4-H: out-of-school child obesity prevention; Social Cognitive Theory; 8-session cooking curriculum-diet acculturation barriers to food security. Recruitment: local refugee programs, snowballing. After baseline, dyads randomly assigned to treatment (2-months pilot), controls.
Burundian, Congolese refugee families. Horizontal kits in 21 households, vertical in 4, combination in 16. 24% spent less on food, 71% ↑ fruit/veg intake, 50% covered 20% of meals with garden produce. 68% produced 5-9 crops, 9% <5 crops. No success selling produce: expenses (packaging) ≥profits. <30% satisfied due to limited production, expectation to profit selling surplus. 76% planned to continue gardening, would recommend to others. Refugees in camp can travel out for work if registered. Food rations appropriate since markets not fully functioning. FFA did not appropriately target most in need. National capacity for contingency planning, food security, emergency assessment ↑; sustainability still a concern. Effective, efficient supply chain management strongest asset of program, saving lives, ↑ food security, exceeding GFD targets, timely delivery. Underfunding affected FFA targets in 2012, GFD tonnage targets in 2013. Provide food assistance to vulnerable households whose food, nutrition security adversely affected by civil unrest in Syria, to save lives, protect livelihoods in emergencies.
Syria: Targeted General Food Distribution (GFD) as household in-kind rations, blanket in-kind supplementary feeding for children 6-59 months, vouchers for pregnant/lactating women, in-kind school-feeding. Lebanon: GFD to eligible out of camp refugees, returning Lebanese as 1-month in-kind parcels then vouchers. Turkey: GFD to all refugees in camps as vouchers. Jordan: GFD to all refugees in camps as 1-day in-kind meals then vouchers with daily bread, vouchers to all registered refugees out of camps, in-kind school feeding in camps, in-kind nutrition for refugees in and out of camps. Iraq: GFD to all refugees as in-kind in 9 camps, vouchers in 1 camp, in-kind school feeding in 2 camps. Egypt: GFD as vouchers to eligible out of camp refugees, Palestinians from Syria. Fieldwork in Jordan, Lebanon Turkey; remote collection in Egypt, Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic. Interviews, focus groups, stakeholder questionnaire. Financial limitations ↓ diversity, nutrition of food aid. Most nutrition, food security outcomes sig ↑. Prevalence of acute and chronic malnutrition ↓ in children, below emergency levels, underweight residual in women. Sig ↑ of overweight, obesity, metabolic risk contributing to double burden of undernutrition and obesity. Those who could afford it purchased food to complement rations. Photovoice = valued foods not often distributed.
Satisfied with aid, request ↑ quantity/quality, regular distribution. Diets did not meet requirements for calcium, iron, niacin, vit C, vit A. Acceptable food security ↑ 77% to 93%. ↑ availability of veg, eggs at household level, thereby ↑ micronutrient status of vulnerable refugees.
Multi-storey gardens (MSG), poultry provided to 3 camps. Oil cans filled with rocks in 50 kg cereal bags with holes in top, sides. Seeds planted on top, thinned out, inserted in sides. Required 5 L water 2x/day-recommended greywater. Each household encouraged to build 5 MSGs, provided 3 poultry (1 male, 2 females). Targeted family members with anaemia or malnutrition, large female-headed families, people with HIV/AIDS. Eval: questionnaires on veg consumption, veg sold, % rations sold to buy veg, water use, egg consumption.
167 households in each of 3 camps. Eval: 50 households (random selection). Focus groups: 15-20 households (random selection) not included in household survey and 5 households who were not one of the 167 beneficiary households.
Compared to backyard gardens, MSGs needed ↓ water, veg grew faster, 2 harvests possible. Refugees acquired new skills, diverse meals, shared produce, less likely to sell rations for veg. At eval, chickens too small to lay eggs in 2 camps, but in 1 camp, 35% of participants atẽ 7.5 eggs/week. Project well accepted, requested by nonpilot households; allowed refugees to choose what to plant/eat, gave sense of dignity, well-being. Some refugees trying to duplicate MSG on their own. Poultry not recommended: chickens ate produce, ↑ cost, time.        Food security was directly measured in 39% of studies. While the remainder addressed food security with interventions such as urban agriculture, infant and young child feeding, and nutrition education programs, they did not include direct assessment. While 52% of studies that measured food security used the United Nations Food Consumption Score alone or in addition to the accompanying Diet Diversity Score or Coping Strategies Index, the other 48% each used different methods to measure food security. These methods used one question or multiple questions to assess food security status. Although many seem to be based on the FAO, the WFP, or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) methods-the three most well-known validated questionnaires in developing and developed countries-there is no indication that they were validated questionnaires.

Discussion
In this review, we evaluated food security interventions in refugees and existing gaps in knowledge. Overall, 57 studies met the inclusion criteria, mainly in the area of refugee crisis. Consistently high levels of food insecurity among refugees indicate a need for one standard tool to measure food security across locations to improve understanding around food security in different contexts and help determine best practices and policies. This review has discovered multiple gaps in research leading to limited knowledge of the efficacy of interventions in different refugee settings.

Intervention Types across Geographic Locations Areas of Refugee Crisis
Most studies in areas of refugee crisis such as the Middle East and Southeast Africa report on interventions that include a mixture of cash, vouchers, and food transfers (Figure 3). Substantive literature exists on types of interventions, providing evidence for cash-based transfers as opposed to vouchers or food rations as cash provides choice, flexibility, sense of dignity, and empowerment [23,32,33]. However, in areas where markets are not developed, such as newly established refugee camps, rations seem to be the most beneficial until informal and/or formal economies are established, and markets stabilize. When providing assistance, it is important to consider gender, the inclusion of host communities in the interventions, and the accompaniment of livelihood strategies.
When examining intervention types by UN agencies, we observed that urban agriculture was a focus of the FAO, and cash/voucher interventions were implemented by the WFP; however, there was not much mention of these two agencies working together to combine efforts. The FAO aims to achieve food security for all, the mandate of the UNHCR is to provide international protection to refugees and other persons of concern, and the role of the WFP is to use food aid to support economic and social development, meet food needs in emergency and protracted situations, and promote food security based on FAO recommendations [87,88]. Despite documents such as the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding between UNHCR and WFP being in place, details of these collaborations are lacking, and evaluations of UN agency programs recommend collaboration [81,88]. For example, a 2016 evaluation of WFP programs in Liberia indicated that UNICEF and FAO are listed as partners in the project document, yet no evidence of this collaboration could be found by the evaluation team in any other documentation. Inter-agency action-oriented collaboration could maximize resources, streamline services, and allow the development of successful plans for a transition from cash assistance to livelihood strategies and thus programmatic sustainability.
Based on recommendations from UN agency impact evaluations, in July 2020, the UNHCR and the WFP announced the launch of the "Joint Strategy for Enhancing Self-Reliance in Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Refugee Situations" [89]. They will assess the refugee situation together, investigate the vulnerabilities, capacities and opportunities together based on their assessment, and set goals to improve self-reliance and livelihoods [89]. They will also evaluate their progress on self-reliance in food security together [89]. The new strategy has two main objectives that focus on empowering refugees and creating a supportive environment by engaging the local government and host communities [89]. Although the new joint strategy seems promising and focuses on empowering refugees by engaging all stakeholders, to our knowledge, there is no evidence to evaluate its effectiveness.
In areas of refugee crisis, when host communities are not involved in interventions, it creates feelings of hostility towards refugees as host communities feel like refugees are being helped above their own most vulnerable. The refugee-host relationship can also be affected by country policies which limit the rights of refugees limiting freedom of movement, access to work visas, ownership of land, and more, which is beyond the scope of this review. Including host communities when targeting households for food assistance improves the refugee-host relationship [46].
Livelihood strategies are important to improve sustainability of the aid provided and assist refugees in becoming self-sufficient, particularly when aid is often reduced [11]. It is of note to mention that not all interventions are purposeful, and some are instigated by refugees themselves in the form of establishing informal economies and trading in and around refugee camps [90]. It is beneficial to take note of these interventions as well because we can learn from the entrepreneurial activities of refugees when planning interventions as it is indicative of what refugees need. By providing more livelihood opportunities with the support of humanitarian aid agencies, it may be possible to improve refugee self-reliance, empowerment, and gender equity [46,47,60,76].
A considerable amount of evidence is focused on Palestinian and Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan [5,41,43,48,58]. While most interventions in refugee crisis areas are focused on cash, vouchers, and food transfers, studies in Lebanon reported more sustainable programs such as school-based nutrition, community kitchens and urban agriculture, which are in the line of main interventions in developed destination countries [41,43,45,48,58].

Destination Countries
Refugees are a vulnerable population that suffer unique challenges that often affect their food security status even after entering destination countries. Our results showed few studies are being conducted on refugee food security interventions in developed destination countries despite similar levels of food insecurity between refugees in destination and nondestination countries [6,91]. For example, a Canadian study by Lane et al. (2019) reported that 50% of refugee households (from various countries of origin) were food insecure [91]. Similarly, 50% of Syrian refugees in Lebanon have been found to be food insecure [6]. It is also common to see studies in destination countries (e.g., Canadian Community Health Survey in Canada) grouping refugees with immigrants and excluding participants who cannot speak the country's official languages, which portrays an inaccurate and underestimated image of refugee food security issues [92]. Only 17% of refugee food security intervention studies in destination countries measured food security status.
There is a significant difference in the types of interventions in developed destination countries focusing mainly on urban agriculture, gardening, animal husbandry, and foraging, and other nutrition programming such as nutrition education (Figure 3). In destination countries such as Canada, refugees are covered by direct cash support and housing programs in the first year of arrival [93]. Afterwards, based on their situation, they could be eligible for regular social assistance programs. An abrupt cessation to federal government aid may explain the high prevalence of food insecurity among refugees in destination countries a year after arrival [27].

Considerations for the Most Vulnerable
Gender is an important consideration when developing food security interventions. In many cultures, women are often in charge of food preparation for the household. We know that women/mothers are more likely to cut back their intake and portion sizes so that other families, particularly children, can have enough to eat [17]. Women are more likely to be food insecure and women and girls are at greater risk of gender-based violence [50,82,85,94]. Although many UN agency interventions included gender considerations in the intervention plan (e.g., planned to target women as beneficiaries of cash/food transfers), evaluations showed that these considerations are lacking during implementation [81,85]. Evaluations often indicated a need for more security, oversight, monitoring, and evaluation in camp settings [81,84]. Equitable gender considerations can be difficult because many countries still lack women's rights and their policies and social norms may prevent women from seeking employment outside the home, and other genders are not considered due to discrimination and oppressive laws [14,32,94]. Few studies mentioned other at-risk populations such as children not covered by IYCF programs, the elderly, LGBTQIA2S+, and persons with disabilities, and research shows that these people are often overlooked in the design and implementation of humanitarian aid, indicating a need to amend interventions to assist these at-risk groups [14,15]. Although not all interventions can affect policy change, it is important to work with governments to find ways to assist the most vulnerable.

Assessing Food Security
Our review showed that less than half of the studies that aimed to address food security issues actually measured food security, and those that did used a variety of different tools with only some being validated. The most common tool used to measure food security was the UN's Food Consumption Score used in 52% of the studies that measured food security, while all other tools were only used in one study each. A wide range of food security topics makes it difficult to assess the efficacy of interventions. A consistent tool that is validated in different languages is needed to accurately compare food security across locations and contexts, differentiating between adult and child food security and providing a more complete picture of food security issues in households, which would allow more targeted interventions. The WFP is evaluating the food security status of refugees in areas of refugee crises using the Consolidated Approach to Reporting Indicators of Food Security (CARI) [95]. This comprehensive tool incorporates the Food Consumption Score, economic capacity, and livelihood coping strategies, which has been widely accepted and is a good measure of food security [95]. The Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) is a questionnaire containing 18 questions that assess income-related food security status at household, adult, and child levels [96]. The HFSSM has been validated and used in more than 19 languages in different countries, particularly developed destination countries [96]. The ability of the HFSSM to assess food security in households, adults, and children makes it a proper candidate as a standard tool that fills the gap in our ability to universally assess the efficacy of food security interventions in different settings. Destination countries such as Canada and the USA are using the HFSSM regularly in their nutrition and health national surveys [96]. Therefore, using either tool or a combination as a standard food security assessment tool will allow the comparison of food security status of refugees with host countries to identify the gaps and disparities.

Knowledge Gaps and Research Recommendations
A considerable number of studies in areas of refugee crisis evaluated the short-term interventions of international agencies individually [23,81,82]. There is a lack of evidence as to whether international agencies are working together on interventions they support collectively and, if so, how effective those initiatives are compared to interventions implemented by one agency alone. Further, it is not clear the extent to which international agencies work with local governments or NGOs on the sustainability of interventions that is necessary to empower refugees, enable them to be self-sufficient, improve their food security status, and contribute to local economies.
Research has shown that beneficiaries prefer cash to vouchers and rations and that cash often results in better outcomes compared to other modalities [32,33,39,40,56]. The lack of direct food security measures in many studies, along with insufficient methodologies (e.g., measures only in one time point, lack of food security measures, lack of control group), prevented an assessment of any improvement correlated with the intervention itself. The lack of a consistent tool used to measure food security prevents any comparison across studies, which goes beyond the scope of this review. Similarly, limited studies on cash, vouchers, and/or rations measured food security and considered gender in their implementation. Of those that did, none compared food security results across genders.
Grey literature indicates the role of community-based organizations and host communities in supporting and empowering refugees, particularly in destination countries [60,61,77]. Such organizations conduct interventions without proper pre-and post-evaluations, leading to lack of evidence on the impact and effectiveness of such initiatives. There is a need to identify, evaluate, and document best practices aimed to improve the food security status of refugees.
Although international agencies have clear policies and work plans with regards to food security in areas of refugee crisis, to our knowledge no study has evaluated the policies by local governments in areas of refugee crisis as well as destination countries [88,97,98]. Such studies will assist in identifying effective policies that aim to improve food security status of refugees while empowering them as new members of the host community.
Short-term interventions are necessary to alleviate hunger and other short-term effects of food insecurity among refugees. However, many protracted refugees continue to live in unstable situations in host countries, which can impact their food security status. There is limited information surrounding food security interventions in protracted crises, likely due to limited resources and international aid agencies focusing efforts on acute crises. Thus, further efforts are required to address sustainability issues when it comes to food security interventions.

Strengths and Limitations
To our knowledge, this is the first study to use a systematic approach using the PRISMA guidelines to identify and evaluate the selected literature on refugee food security interventions. The main strength of our study is the systematic method of setting eligibility criteria, identifying the literature, and detecting the gaps in research. The categorization of types of interventions and geo-mapping according to geographic locations is another strength of our study that provides insight into the distribution of the types of interventions across the globe.
Regarding limitations, we only included interventions reported in the English language as indicated in the inclusion criteria. Therefore, we were unable to identify and include reports available in different local languages. The variation in the tools used to assess food security and methods of evaluation limited us from having an overall picture of food insecurity status before the evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions.

Conclusions
Refugee crisis is on the rise due to climate change, war and other political and societal conflicts. Humanitarian agencies continually provide assistance and evaluate their interventions in areas of refugee crisis. The resultant evidence has provided substantive information on when to use certain types of interventions, such as cash when markets are stable and the importance of incorporating livelihood strategies to transition to a sustainable level of aid and help refugees become self-sufficient and active members of their communities. In destination countries, the types of interventions are more towards capacity building and education. Considering numerous existing interventions, the rate of food insecurity is still very high among refugees. In addition, due to lack of a proper and universal approach for evaluation, the efficacy of interventions is not clear. Further efforts are necessary to work with governments to affect policy change to advocate for the rights of marginalized populations such as children, seniors, women, LGBTQIA2S+, persons with disabilities, and minority groups. It is also vital to engage host communities and NGOs to create a welcoming culture that benefits both refugees and host communities. Finally, researchers should adopt a standard feasible food security assessment tool which is needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions across locations and countries to develop best practices based on comparative results.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.