MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408561220 · doi:10.2196/69242

Evaluation of a Curriculum-Based Nutrition Education Intervention Protocol in Elementary Schools: Nonrandomized Feasibility Study

2025· article· en· W4408561220 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jacqueline Marie Brown, Nicholas Rita, Beatriz Franco‐Arellano, Ann LeSage, JoAnne Arcand

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintCurriculumProtocol (science)Intervention (counseling)Medical educationMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyMedicineComputer scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Improving children's food literacy through school-based interventions can support developing healthy eating habits. However, teachers lack appropriate resources, time, and training to provide nutrition education in schools. Serious games, which are games designed for a purpose other than entertainment, have been demonstrated to improve children's food literacy and dietary intake and can address the barriers teachers face in providing nutrition education. Foodbot Factory (Arcand Lab) is a nutrition education intervention that is aligned with curricula and uses a serious game to provide nutrition education to students. Further evidence is needed to understand how serious games, including Foodbot Factory, can be researched in schools to support nutrition education. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a research study protocol that implements the curriculum-based nutrition education intervention Foodbot Factory into a real-world classroom setting. The evaluation of the protocol included study processes, resources, and management feasibility outcomes, as well as a preliminary assessment of scientific outcomes relevant to the intervention. Methods: A nonrandomized study determined the feasibility of intervention implementation. Grade 4 and 4/5 classrooms were assigned to have nutrition education lessons for 5 days with either the Foodbot Factory or a control intervention. Outcomes were assessed in 4 feasibility domains of study processes (eg, recruitment and attrition rates), resources (eg, time taken to deliver the intervention), and management (eg, challenges with intervention delivery), and a preliminary assessment of scientific outcomes pertaining to the acceptability and impacts of the interventions. These outcomes were captured in semistructured field notes completed by study staff and a Nutrition Attitudes and Knowledge questionnaire and acceptability questionnaire completed by participants. Data were analyzed descriptively and using a paired t test to assess within-group changes in nutrition knowledge. Results: In total, 4 classrooms participated in the feasibility study, with varying recruitment rates for schools (3/20, 15%), classrooms (4/4, 100%), parents (54/102, 53%), and children (49/54, 91%). The time required to implement the research protocol, including data collection and lesson plans, was sufficient and management of the intervention implementation was overall successful. Some challenges were experienced with classroom management during data collection, specifically with electronic data collection. After the intervention, participants reported a positive affective experience (26/41, 63%) and learning something new about healthy eating (31/41, 76%). Participants in both study groups improved their nutrition knowledge, but the changes were not statistically significant. The Foodbot Factory group had a statistically significant improvement in their knowledge of vegetables and fruit (P=.04) and protein foods (P=.03). Conclusions: These findings indicate that the study protocol is feasible to implement and evaluate Foodbot Factory in a representative sample with select modifications to improve recruitment and data collection procedures.

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)0.135
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1350.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.441 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→