Boys and girls differ in their rationale behind eating: a systematic review of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in dietary habits across countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Boys' and girls' food habits diverge in adolescence (13-18 years). This contributes to unequal risks of adverse health outcomes based on sex and gender in adulthood (e.g., heart diseases in men vs. disorder eating in women). Though multi-factorial, why these dietary differences occur is unclear. Purpose: To identify the reasons why adolescents' motivation behind dietary habits differs among genders. Methods: Four databases were searched following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies had to use qualitative methodology and report at least one gender unique theme. Reported themes were thematically analyzed, with a sub-analysis by country where the studies were conducted. Quality appraisals were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Results: = 1,694 returned) two overarching themes emerged that dictated dietary habits in adolescents: Self-motivators and Uncontrollable factors. Gender differences arose whereby girls highlighted more external motivators (e.g., eat healthier, change dietary habits around boys and be thin to fit traditional norms) over their dietary habits. In contrast, boys focused on more internal motivators (e.g., gain autonomy, eat for enjoyment and pursue gains in physical performance). This suggests that motivation underlying how boys and girls eat differs. These trends were largely consistent across countries. Conclusion: Boys' and girls' food habits are not motivated by the same factors. To create more effective dietary interventions targeting health promotion, unique motivations behind food habits need to be understood and incorporated. Systematic review registration: Identifier: CRD42022298077.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".