How Labeling of Commercial Baby Foods Impacts Parents’ Beliefs About Sugar Content and Related Purchasing and Feeding Decisions: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Average sugar consumption among young children in the United Kingdom exceeds the recommended intake. Many parents choose commercial baby foods believing these to be a healthy option. However, surveys show many products contain high levels of added or free sugars, despite labeling suggesting they are "natural" and "healthy." Analysis of labels and studies with parents suggest changes such as removing misleading marketing or adding sugar warning labels may impact parents' beliefs and food choices. However, the literature does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the range of changes to commercial baby food labels that might best support parents in choosing healthier foods for their children. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review will explore the published and unpublished evidence base to better understand what is known about how labeling of baby foods impacts parents' beliefs about a product's sugar content and related purchasing and feeding decisions. METHODS: The JBI guidelines for methodology of scoping reviews will be followed, and results will be reported using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The population, concept, and context (PCC) framework will be used to determine eligibility criteria. The search will include various research methodologies, including both quantitative (observational and interventional) and qualitative studies. An initial search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) was conducted to develop a full search strategy for MEDLINE, which is presented here. In addition to MEDLINE and Embase, we will search PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Web of Science (Core Collection) and the Cochrane Library. Reference lists of included studies will also be searched. Unpublished reports will be identified using Google, Google Scholar, relevant websites, policy statements, and government reports and by contacting relevant government and third-sector organizations. In a 2-stage process, 2 reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and then full texts. One reviewer will then extract data and a second will verify accuracy. Findings will be presented in tables and diagrams accompanied by a narrative summary. RESULTS: The literature searches yielded 2071 records from 6 databases, with 1123 documents remaining after deduplication. The gray literature search used a customized Google search, a targeted search of 34 websites, and contact with 49 experts. CONCLUSIONS: We present a protocol for a scoping review to explore the evidence base to understand what is known about how the labeling of baby foods impacts parents' beliefs about sugar content and related purchasing and feeding decisions. The results of the review will help policymakers better understand regulatory opportunities to improve the labeling of commercial infant foods to help families feed infants and young children lower-sugar diets. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/70135.
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 | 0,072 | 0,083 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,016 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,094 | 0,016 |
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 ».