MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792625847 · doi:10.1017/s1368980017004207

Education, practical training and professional development for public health practitioners: a scoping review of the literature and insights for sustainable food system capacity-building

2018· review· en· W2792625847 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Wegener, Debbie Fong, Cecília Rocha

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nutrition · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLSustainabilityCurriculumProfessional developmentMedical educationScopusMEDLINEPublic healthMedicineCapacity buildingPsychologyPolitical scienceNursingPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Noting the upstream positioning of sustainable food systems (SFS) to multiple global crises, the present review described examples of emerging and promising practices to support SFS-oriented education, practical training (PT) and continuing professional development (CPD) among trainees and public health practitioners (PHP). A secondary objective was to compile the evidence into practical considerations for educators, supervising practitioners and professional associations. DESIGN: A scoping review of the literature published between 2007 and 2017 was conducted in May 2017 using four databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus and HSSA, along with bibliography hand-searching and expert consultation. Articles were screened for relevance and specificity by independent raters. RESULTS: Nineteen articles were included for analysis. Two-thirds of the articles related to dietitians and public health nutritionists. Emerging practices included curriculum-based considerations, incorporation of 'sustainability' within professional competencies and self-reflection related to SFS. Descriptions of SFS-related education, PT and CPD practices appeared largely in the literature from developed countries. Articles converged on the need for ecosystems, food systems and sustainability considerations within and across practice to support current and future practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: There is growing interest in SFS but guidance to support educators and preceptors is lacking. Updates to dietary guidelines to reflect issues of sustainability are a timely prompt to examine the education, training and development needs of trainees and PHP. Practical examples of emerging practices can empower PHP to promote SFS in all areas of practice. More research is needed to address identified gaps in the literature and to improve SFS-specific education, PT and CPD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0170.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NutritionSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207