Salutogenesis, nutritional status and eating behaviour: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between the sense of coherence (SOC), eating behaviour and nutritional status. DESIGN: It is a systematic review. SETTING: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE/PubMed, Science Direct/Elsevier, LILACS/Bireme, SciELO and Google Scholar, using the indexed terms 'salutogenesis', 'sense of coherence', 'nutritional status', 'nutrition', 'eating behavior' and 'healthy eating'. The indexed terms were used in Portuguese and English according to the database searched. The data were extracted in a standardised way and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. PARTICIPANTS: Observational studies were included, with no limitations on the date of publication or language. RESULTS: After reading the titles and abstracts of 1855 articles, 107 full texts were retrieved, of which 27 were included. Of these, twenty-five were cross-sectional and two were longitudinal. The average score for Newcastle-Ottawa studies was 6 and most studies were rated as moderate and low quality. The cumulative sample size of all included studies was 28 981 adults and the elderly, aged between 18 and 81 years. The studies were carried out in fifteen different countries. Fifteen articles assessed eating behaviour/habit and twelve assessed nutritional status. Studies have shown that SOC has a positive relationship with an appropriate eating behaviour/habit. On the other hand, the relationship between SOC and nutritional status was controversial among studies. The heterogeneity of the data resulting from the use of different methods of evaluation of the outcomes of interest (nutritional status and eating behaviour) made it impossible to perform a meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: SOC was positively associated with adequate eating behaviour. However, it was not possible to establish a relationship between SOC and nutritional status.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".