University Food Environment Assessment Methods and Their Implications: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the retail food environment has been well studied, research surrounding the university food environment is still emerging. Existing research suggests that university food environments can influence behavioral outcomes such as students' dietary choices, which may be maintained long-term. Despite a growing interest in assessing university food environments, there is no standardized tool for completing this task. How researchers define "healthy" when assessing university food environments needs to be clarified. This paper describes the protocol for systematically reviewing literature involving university food environment assessments. OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to describe the protocol for a systematic review of the assessments of university food environments. The review will summarize previously used tools or methods and their implications. METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed (NLM), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Web of Science (Clarivate), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health) Complete (EBSCO), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and Google Scholar were searched for papers published between 2012 and 2022 using combinations of related medical subject headings terms and keywords. The electronic databases were supplemented by reviewing the reference list for all included papers and systematic reviews returned with our search results. The review will include all study types, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and other pre-post designs. Papers that examine at least 1 aspect of the university food environment, such as cafeterias, campus convenience stores, and vending machines, were considered for inclusion. A total of 2 reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, complete a full-text review, extract data, and perform a quality assessment of included papers, with a third reviewer resolving any conflicts. The Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool was used to determine the methodological quality of selected studies. A narrative and tabular summary of the findings were presented. There will not be a meta-analysis due to the methodological heterogeneity of the included papers. RESULTS: The initial queries of 4502 records have been executed, and papers have been screened for inclusion. Data extractions were completed in December 2023. The results of the review were accepted for publication in May 2024. The systematic review generated from this protocol will offer evidence for using different assessment tools to examine the campus food environment. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will summarize the tools and methods used to assess university food environments where many emerging adults spend a significant part of their young adult lives. The findings will highlight variations in practice and how "healthy" has been defined globally. This review will provide an understanding of this unique organizational food environment with implications for practice and policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023398073; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=398073. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54955.
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 | 0.134 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.014 |
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".