Can eating pleasure be a lever for healthy dietary behaviours and health? A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many authors now claim that eating pleasure may be a promising approach to foster healthy dietary behaviours and recent dietary guidelines, such as Canada’s Food Guide, now include the enjoyment of food among their healthy eating recommendations. However, the links between eating pleasure and dietary behaviours have not been reviewed comprehensively so far, which makes difficult to assess whether and how eating pleasure can truly be a lever for healthy eating and health. Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to map and summarize the data currently available about (1) the key dimensions of eating pleasure; (2) the associations between eating pleasure, its key dimensions, and dietary/health outcomes and (3) the promising methods integrating eating pleasure to promote healthy eating. Inclusion criteria: This review will include all documents targeting individuals of at least 5 years old, that mainly focused on eating pleasure conceptualization or reported data about the links between eating pleasure and dietary behaviour and/or health outcomes, written in English or in French, conducted in developed countries (i.e. countries with a high or very high human development index), and interested in eating pleasure as experienced or reported by the individual himself. Methods: This scoping review will be based on an adaptation of the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework for scoping reviews, which includes the following six steps: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting eligible studies, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results and (6) consultation. A comprehensive search of the peer reviewed literature (Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, ERIC, Web of Science, CINAHL, ABI/Inform global and Sociology Abstract) and of the grey literature (ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and Google) by two independent reviewers will be conducted using pleasure- and eating-related terms. Data will be extracted for author(s), journal, year of publication, country, language, aim(s), target population, methodology, concepts of interest, key findings relating to the scoping review objectives, conclusion of authors, and source(s) of funding. Then, a thematic analysis of the dimensions of eating pleasure will be undertaken. Associations between eating pleasure and dietary/health outcomes will be explored globally, and thereafter separately for each key dimension of eating pleasure. Intervention strategies that integrated eating pleasure and led to a significant and beneficial impact on dietary behaviour and/or health outcomes will be identified as promising methods. An expert committee will be consulted at each critical step of the scoping review. Conclusion: This review will allow the identification of gaps that research efforts should address to inform practical strategies about the place of eating pleasure in the promotion of healthy eating and health.
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 | 0.167 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.018 |
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".