Can eating pleasure be a lever for healthy dietary behaviours and health? A Scoping Review Protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Many authors now claim that eating pleasure may be a promising approach to foster healthy dietary behaviours and recent dietary guidelines, such as Canada’s Food Guide, now include the enjoyment of food among their healthy eating recommendations. However, the links between eating pleasure and dietary behaviours have not been reviewed comprehensively so far, which makes difficult to assess whether and how eating pleasure can truly be a lever for healthy eating and health. Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to map and summarize the data currently available about (1) the key dimensions of eating pleasure; (2) the associations between eating pleasure, its key dimensions, and dietary/health outcomes and (3) the promising methods integrating eating pleasure to promote healthy eating. Inclusion criteria: This review will include all documents targeting individuals of at least 5 years old, that mainly focused on eating pleasure conceptualization or reported data about the links between eating pleasure and dietary behaviour and/or health outcomes, written in English or in French, conducted in developed countries (i.e. countries with a high or very high human development index), and interested in eating pleasure as experienced or reported by the individual himself. Methods: This scoping review will be based on an adaptation of the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework for scoping reviews, which includes the following six steps: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting eligible studies, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results and (6) consultation. A comprehensive search of the peer reviewed literature (Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, ERIC, Web of Science, CINAHL, ABI/Inform global and Sociology Abstract) and of the grey literature (ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and Google) by two independent reviewers will be conducted using pleasure- and eating-related terms. Data will be extracted for author(s), journal, year of publication, country, language, aim(s), target population, methodology, concepts of interest, key findings relating to the scoping review objectives, conclusion of authors, and source(s) of funding. Then, a thematic analysis of the dimensions of eating pleasure will be undertaken. Associations between eating pleasure and dietary/health outcomes will be explored globally, and thereafter separately for each key dimension of eating pleasure. Intervention strategies that integrated eating pleasure and led to a significant and beneficial impact on dietary behaviour and/or health outcomes will be identified as promising methods. An expert committee will be consulted at each critical step of the scoping review. Conclusion: This review will allow the identification of gaps that research efforts should address to inform practical strategies about the place of eating pleasure in the promotion of healthy eating and health.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,167 | 0,138 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,020 | 0,016 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,068 | 0,018 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».