MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405401530 · doi:10.32598/jnrcp.2407.1129

Effect of educational interventions on nutritional knowledge of cancer prevention based on health belief model: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4405401530 on OpenAlexaff
Megha K. Shah, Mohammad Javad Hajipour, Zahra Sheibani, Alannah L. Couper, Stephanie Sandanasamy, Phil McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Reports in Clinical Practice · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionHealth belief modelCancer preventionSystematic reviewPsychologyMedicineCancerHealth educationMEDLINENursingPublic healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of educational interventions on nutritional knowledge for cancer prevention using the health belief model. Comprehensive searches were conducted in international electronic databases, including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science, from their inception until June 16, 2024. Keywords derived from Medical Subject Headings such as "Nutrition Knowledge", "Education", "Health Belief Model", and "Cancer" were utilized. The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) critical assessment checklist. A total of 611 participants were enrolled in five studies, with 78.39% female and 76.76% in the intervention group. The mean age of participants was 42.12 years (SD=6.47). Of the included studies, one was an RCT, while the remaining four were quasi-experimental. Three studies included a control group, and four studies incorporated a follow-up. Regarding the assessment tools used, four studies employed researcher-developed questionnaires, and one study utilized the nutrition-related cancer prevention knowledge, attitude, and practice (NUTCANKAP) questionnaire for evaluating nutritional knowledge. The mean follow-up period was approximately 14 weeks, and the average duration of the intervention was 54 minutes. Across all studies, the interventions effectively increased nutritional knowledge of cancer prevention based on the health belief model. The findings indicated that education based on the health belief model effectively increased nutritional knowledge of cancer prevention. Health professionals like nurses can use this model to enhance nutritional knowledge. It is recommended that health managers and policymakers create environments that enable health professionals to employ educational strategies based on the health belief model, thereby improving nutritional knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.659
Teacher spread0.420 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Reports in Clinical PracticeSame topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207