Adnaan Ghanchi
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Adnaan Ghanchi has a total of 30 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Amy Dehn Lunn
Wolfson Institute for Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK
7 shared publications - Anna Gkiouleka
Wolfson Institute for Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK
6 shared publications - Danielle Lamb
University College London
6 shared publications - John Ford
Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
6 shared publications - Payam Torabi
The Aberfeldy Practice, UK
5 shared publications - Sashika Harasgama
Wolfson Institute for Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK
5 shared publications
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 9 May 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100808
What works to improve health and digital health literacy in disadvantaged groups: A policy-focused evidence brief
- 9 May 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100808
Open AccessWhat works to improve health and digital health literacy in disadvantaged groups: A policy-focused evidence brief
- Open Access
- 28 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100783
Addressing inequalities in the primary and secondary outpatient interface: A policy-focused evidence brief
- 28 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100783
Open AccessAddressing inequalities in the primary and secondary outpatient interface: A policy-focused evidence brief
- Open Access
- 26 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100780
Improving behavioural interventions in healthcare to address the needs of disadvantaged groups: A policy-focused evidence brief
- 26 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100780
Open AccessImproving behavioural interventions in healthcare to address the needs of disadvantaged groups: A policy-focused evidence brief
- Open Access
- 24 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100768
Designing health care inclusively for people with low incomes: A policy-focused evidence brief
- 24 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100768
Open AccessDesigning health care inclusively for people with low incomes: A policy-focused evidence brief
- Open Access
- 20 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100773
Community engagement and empowerment to address health inequalities: A rapid evidence review
- 20 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100773
Open AccessCommunity engagement and empowerment to address health inequalities: A rapid evidence review
- Open Access
- 20 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100774
Empowering health care staff to address health inequalities: A policy-focused evidence brief
- 20 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100774
Open AccessEmpowering health care staff to address health inequalities: A policy-focused evidence brief
- Open Access
- 12 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100769
Improving case-finding of long-term health problems in disadvantaged communities: A Policy-focused Evidence Brief
- 12 March 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100769
Open AccessImproving case-finding of long-term health problems in disadvantaged communities: A Policy-focused Evidence Brief
- Open Access
- 19 February 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100757
How can integrated neighbourhood teams (INTs) tackle health and care inequalities? A policy evidence brief
- 19 February 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100757
Open AccessHow can integrated neighbourhood teams (INTs) tackle health and care inequalities? A policy evidence brief
- Open Access
- 19 February 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100756
Payment mechanisms to improve prevention spending in health care settings: A policy-focused evidence brief
- 19 February 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health in Practice
- Vol. 11, 100756
Open AccessPayment mechanisms to improve prevention spending in health care settings: A policy-focused evidence brief
- Open Access
- 15 January 2019
- Published by Elsevier in Current Developments in Nutrition
- Vol. 3 (3) , nzz005
Guts, Germs, and Iron: A Systematic Review on Iron Supplementation, Iron Fortification, and Diarrhea in Children Aged 4–59 Months
The impact of iron supplements and iron fortification on diarrhea in children is controversial, with some studies reporting an increase and others reporting no effect. The aim of the study was systematically assess the published literature on oral iron supplementation and fortification to evaluate its impact on diarrhea incidence among children aged 4–59 mo. Randomized controlled trials of oral iron supplementation or iron fortification that reported diarrheal outcomes in children aged 4–59 mo were identified from a systematic search of 5 databases. Of the 906 records identified, 19 studies were found to fit the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. However, variable case definitions for diarrhea made meta-analysis impossible. Of the 19 studies, 7 (37%) studies showed a significant increase, either in overall diarrhea incidence or within a specific subgroup of the population, between iron-supplemented and control groups. Subgroups included children who were iron-replete and children undergoing their first month of iron intervention. Two studies reported an increase in bloody diarrhea. The remaining 12 (63%) studies showed no difference between iron-supplemented and control groups. Studies on iron supplementation and fortification use divergent case definitions for diarrhea. A number of studies (37%) showed an increase in overall diarrhea incidence or within a specific subgroup of the population, between iron-supplemented and control groups, but the majority (63%) did not. In addition, there was no clear relation between diarrhea and type of intervention or amount of iron administered observed. In future studies, we recommend that diarrhea be clearly defined and consistently recorded as a secondary outcome. Antibiotic status of participants receiving iron should also be collected to help assess possible drug interactions resulting in a “red stool effect.” Finally, further microbiome research is required to better understand the effects of oral iron on specific bacterial species in the colon.
- 15 January 2019
- Published by Elsevier in Current Developments in Nutrition
- Vol. 3 (3) , nzz005
Open AccessGuts, Germs, and Iron: A Systematic Review on Iron Supplementation, Iron Fortification, and Diarrhea in Children Aged 4–59 Months
The impact of iron supplements and iron fortification on diarrhea in children is controversial, with some studies reporting an increase and others reporting no effect. The aim of the study was systematically assess the published literature on oral iron supplementation and fortification to evaluate its impact on diarrhea incidence among children aged 4–59 mo. Randomized controlled trials of oral iron supplementation or iron fortification that reported diarrheal outcomes in children aged 4–59 mo were identified from a systematic search of 5 databases. Of the 906 records identified, 19 studies were found to fit the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. However, variable case definitions for diarrhea made meta-analysis impossible. Of the 19 studies, 7 (37%) studies showed a significant increase, either in overall diarrhea incidence or within a specific subgroup of the population, between iron-supplemented and control groups. Subgroups included children who were iron-replete and children undergoing their first month of iron intervention. Two studies reported an increase in bloody diarrhea. The remaining 12 (63%) studies showed no difference between iron-supplemented and control groups. Studies on iron supplementation and fortification use divergent case definitions for diarrhea. A number of studies (37%) showed an increase in overall diarrhea incidence or within a specific subgroup of the population, between iron-supplemented and control groups, but the majority (63%) did not. In addition, there was no clear relation between diarrhea and type of intervention or amount of iron administered observed. In future studies, we recommend that diarrhea be clearly defined and consistently recorded as a secondary outcome. Antibiotic status of participants receiving iron should also be collected to help assess possible drug interactions resulting in a “red stool effect.” Finally, further microbiome research is required to better understand the effects of oral iron on specific bacterial species in the colon.