Systematic review of the effects of family meal frequency on psychosocial outcomes in youth.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the effects of frequent family meals on psychosocial outcomes in children and adolescents, and to examine whether there are differences in outcomes between males and females. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified through a search of MEDLINE (1948 to fifth week of June 2011) and PsycINFO (1806 to first week of July 2011) using the Ovid interface. The MeSH terms and key words used both alone and in combination were family, meal, food intake, nutrition, diets, body weight, adolescent attitudes, eating behaviour, feeding behaviour, and eating disorders. Bibliographies of papers deemed relevant were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: The original search yielded 1783 articles. To be included in the analysis, studies had to meet the following criteria: have been published in a peer-reviewed journal in English; involve children or adolescents; discuss the role of family meals on the psychosocial outcomes (eg, substance use, disordered eating, depression) of children or adolescents; and have an adequate study design, including appropriate statistical methods for analyzing outcome data. Fourteen papers met inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers studied and analyzed the papers. SYNTHESIS: Overall, results show that frequent family meals are inversely associated with disordered eating, alcohol and substance use, violent behaviour, and feelings of depression or thoughts of suicide in adolescents. There is a positive relationship between frequent family meals and increased self-esteem and school success. Studies show substantial differences in outcomes for male and female children and adolescents, with females having more positive results. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides further support that frequent family meals should be endorsed. All health care practitioners should educate families on the benefits of having regular meals together as a family.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".