Peer-led nutrition education programs for school-aged youth: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, the impacts of school-based, peer-led nutrition education initiatives have not been summarized or assessed collectively. This review presents the current evidence, identifies knowledge gaps, and provides recommendations for future research. PubMed, Scopus, ERIC and Google Scholar were searched for refereed Canadian and American primary studies published between January 2000 and November 2013, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Seventeen articles (11 programs) from Canada (24%) and the United States (76%) were identified. The results were summarized in terms of the study population, program design and main outcomes. Common outcome measures included healthy eating knowledge (n = 5), self-efficacy or attitudes towards healthy eating (n = 13), dietary measures (n = 9) and body mass index (n = 4), all of which tended to improve as a result of the programs. More research is needed to ascertain the effect of improvements in knowledge, self-efficacy and attitudes towards healthy eating on food behaviors. When evaluated, programs were generally well received, while the long-term maintenance of positive impacts was a challenge. Studies of sustainability and feasibility to promote long-term impact are a logical next step.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".