Evaluation of mobiles apps that promote health behaviour change. Can these be adapted for use in dietetic practice in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Horticulture interventions in developing countries are most effective in improvingmicronutrient malnutrition when combined with nutrition education, although there have been few studies assessing their long term impact. In 2017, a peer-lednutrition education and horticulture intervention was implemented in a womenu2019s group inEastern Kenya which focused on introducing food related practices aimed at increasing micronutrient intakes; a comparison group received no intervention. While we found that the intervention group had higher diet diversity (variety) and was more likely to adopt recommended food related practices such as adding orange and green vegetables to staple foods immediately after the intervention (reported elsewhere), it is not known if these positive changes are retained in the longer term. Objective: To assess the impact of a combined horticulture and peer-led nutrition education intervention on diet diversity and food related practices among rural Kenyan women from post-intervention (2017) to 2018. Methods: Food related practices were assessed one year after the intervention (2018)using a questionnaire during home interviews; a 24-hour recall and a standardized food coding method was used to assess diet diversity. Diet diversity scores and practices were compared between 2017 and 2018 for the intervention (n=29) and comparison group (n=19) using Wilcoxan rank sum and chi square tests.Results: Diet diversity scores were significantly higher in 2018 than in 2017 for the intervention group (p=0.025). All recommended food related practices were maintained from 2017 to 2018 except for adding an orange vegetable to mukimo, a starchy vegetable dish, which was significantly lower (p=0.01). There were no significant differences in practices among women in the comparison group from 2017 to 2018. Conclusions: Results suggest that in women receiving a combined nutrition and horticulture intervention, improvements in healthy food related practices and diet diversity were sustained one-year post intervention suggesting that they may be effective in the long term.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".