University Food Environment Assessment Methods and Their Implications: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: While the retail food environment has been well studied, research surrounding the university food environment is still emerging. Existing research suggests that university food environments can influence behavioral outcomes such as students' dietary choices, which may be maintained long-term. Despite a growing interest in assessing university food environments, there is no standardized tool for completing this task. How researchers define "healthy" when assessing university food environments needs to be clarified. This paper describes the protocol for systematically reviewing literature involving university food environment assessments. OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to describe the protocol for a systematic review of the assessments of university food environments. The review will summarize previously used tools or methods and their implications. METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed (NLM), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Web of Science (Clarivate), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health) Complete (EBSCO), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and Google Scholar were searched for papers published between 2012 and 2022 using combinations of related medical subject headings terms and keywords. The electronic databases were supplemented by reviewing the reference list for all included papers and systematic reviews returned with our search results. The review will include all study types, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and other pre-post designs. Papers that examine at least 1 aspect of the university food environment, such as cafeterias, campus convenience stores, and vending machines, were considered for inclusion. A total of 2 reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, complete a full-text review, extract data, and perform a quality assessment of included papers, with a third reviewer resolving any conflicts. The Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool was used to determine the methodological quality of selected studies. A narrative and tabular summary of the findings were presented. There will not be a meta-analysis due to the methodological heterogeneity of the included papers. RESULTS: The initial queries of 4502 records have been executed, and papers have been screened for inclusion. Data extractions were completed in December 2023. The results of the review were accepted for publication in May 2024. The systematic review generated from this protocol will offer evidence for using different assessment tools to examine the campus food environment. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will summarize the tools and methods used to assess university food environments where many emerging adults spend a significant part of their young adult lives. The findings will highlight variations in practice and how "healthy" has been defined globally. This review will provide an understanding of this unique organizational food environment with implications for practice and policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023398073; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=398073. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54955.
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 | 0,134 | 0,193 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,020 | 0,017 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,018 | 0,019 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,073 | 0,014 |
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 ».