A systematic review of trucking food, physical activity, and tobacco environments and tractor-trailer drivers’ related patterns and practices in the United States and Canada, 1993–2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Truckers in the United States (U.S.) and Canada are at high risk for noncommunicable disease. Although trucking built environments have been highlighted for intervention, no systematic review has assessed aspects of trucking environments that may influence food, physical activity (PA), and smoking patterns/practices. The purpose of this systematic review was to characterize the state of the science on trucking food, PA, and tobacco environments and to examine truckers' food, PA, and tobacco patterns/practices. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used. Five databases were selected for searching in April 2020 and 2021 using key terms constructed by a librarian. Peer-reviewed research with data about U.S. and Canadian truckers' (i.e., drivers operating 18-wheelers or tractor trailers) food, PA, and/or tobacco environments and related patterns/practices were included. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Thirty-eight studies were identified. Results included data from at least 16,600 truckers and 282 trucking settings in the U.S. (n = 32) and Canada (n = 6). Most studies were classified as quantitative descriptive and of poor quality (average score 3 of 7). The few studies (n = 4) that measured trucking food and PA environments characterized trucking sites as poor. Fifteen (47%) presented data about truckers' perceptions of food or PA environments and highlighted prominent environmental barriers. Truckers' food, PA, and smoking patterns and practices suggested poor diet quality, sedentary practices, and a high prevalence of smoking. The science of trucking food, PA, and tobacco environments is underdeveloped and requires much more focus using validated measures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".