Environments favorable to healthy lifestyles: A systematic review of initiatives in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, a number of initiatives aimed at promoting healthy lifestyles in health-friendly environments have been implemented. The purpose of this review is to synthesize initiatives conducted in Canada and documented in publications for the period 1995-2015 in order to gain a better understanding of their objectives and impacts. METHODS: A systematic review of Canadian initiatives published over the past 20 years was conducted from multiple databases (i.e., Scopus, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, Academic search complete, Reseausante.com, Cairn, and Erudit). In total, 264 publications were identified and retained for the final analysis based on 5 criteria: (1) publication between 1995 and 2015, (2) online availability, (3) research conducted in Canada, (4) main topic related to environments favorable to healthy lifestyles (EFHL), and (5) publication in French or English. RESULTS: A sharp increase in the number of studies on EFHL was observed between 2010 and 2015 (57%). Two major lifestyle components-physical activity and nutrition-and 2 environmental aspects-neighborhood and built environment-were the elements most frequently examined regarding adults (48%), young people (34%), and seniors (9%), using quantitative (60%) and qualitative (18%) methods. Furthermore, the analysis reveals a greater focus on the municipal (53%) than the national or provincial levels (31%). CONCLUSION: This work is a first map of Canadian studies related to EFHL. It clarifies the definition of EFHL and classifies its components. As well, it documents the issues raised, the research methods employed, and the role of stakeholders, while outlining a new research agenda that includes dimensions of EFHL formerly neglected by researchers, namely, political and sociocultural spheres of action.
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 | 0.024 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.056 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".