MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402542585 · doi:10.1111/obr.13835

Interpersonal determinants of diet quality and eating behaviors in people aged 13–30 years: A systematic scoping review

2024· article· en· W4402542585 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya Braune, Laura Kudlek, Christina Xiao, Hao Tang, Élisabeth Demers‐Potvin, Holly A. Harris, Erin Fitzsimons‐West, Jean Adams, Eleanor Winpenny

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNewnham College, University of CambridgeMedical Research Council
KeywordsPsychological interventionInterpersonal communicationPsychologySocial supportInterpersonal relationshipGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineDemographySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescence is an important period of increasing independence, when adolescents experience changing influences of family and friends on their diets as they transition into adulthood. We conducted a scoping review to map the literature on interpersonal determinants of diet quality and eating behaviors among individuals aged 13-30 years. We searched seven literature databases, and following screening, 329 papers were included. Determinants were grouped according to sub-categories of the Determinants of Nutrition and Eating framework: family structure (n = 122), social influences (n = 121), parental behaviors (n = 90), family food culture (n = 83), social support (n = 69), parental feeding styles (n = 24), parental attitudes/beliefs (n = 8), and parental resources/risk factors (n = 6), and we added two new sub-categories: parenting style (n = 74) and partner behaviors (n = 6). Fruit/vegetable (n = 143) and sugar-sweetened beverage (n = 102) intake were the most commonly measured diet outcomes, and breakfast consumption (n = 41) and fast food/takeaway intake (n = 39) the most commonly examined eating behaviors. This review highlights the gaps in the literature, both across the determinant sub-categories and also the relative paucity of longitudinal evidence and lack of evidence in emerging adults, particularly outside of university settings. Future research should focus on these areas to provide stronger evidence to support better design of interventions for this age group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207