How are adolescents engaged in obesity and chronic disease prevention policy and guideline development? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescent consumer engagement is widely accepted, with global calls to meaningfully involve adolescents for effective and tailored policy and guideline development. However, it is still unclear if and how adolescents are engaged. The aim of this review was to determine if and how adolescents meaningfully participate in policy and guideline development for obesity and chronic disease prevention. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted guided by the Arksey and O'Malley six stage framework. Official government websites for Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and United States including intergovernmental organizations (World Health Organisation and United Nations) were examined. Universal databases Tripdatabase and Google advanced search were also searched. Current and published international and national obesity or chronic disease prevention policies, guidelines, strategies, or frameworks that engaged adolescents aged 10-24 years in meaningful decision-making during the development process were included. The Lansdown-UNICEF conceptual framework was used to define mode of participation. RESULTS: Nine policies and guidelines (n = 5 national, n = 4 international) engaged adolescents in a meaningful capacity, all focused on improving 'health and well-being'. Demographic characteristics were poorly reported, still most ensured representation from disadvantaged groups. Adolescents were primarily engaged in consultative modes (n = 6), via focus groups and consultation exercises. Predominantly in formative phases e.g., scoping the topic or identifying needs (n = 8) and to a lesser extent in the final stage of policy and guideline development e.g., implementation or dissemination (n = 4). No policy or guideline engaged adolescents in all stages of the policy and guideline development process. CONCLUSION: Overall, adolescent engagement in obesity and chronic disease prevention policy and guideline development is consultative and rarely extends throughout the entire development and implementation process.
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 | 0.032 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".