Food literacy programmes in secondary schools: A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current review aimed to synthesise the literature on food literacy interventions among adolescents in secondary schools, the attitudes and perceptions of food literacy interventions in secondary schools, and their effects on dietary outcomes.Design:The systematic review searched five electronic databases from the earliest record to present.Setting:The studies selected for the review were from sixteen countries: Australia (n 10), Canada (n 1), China (n 1), France (n 1), Greece (n 2), Iran (n 1), South Africa (n 1), South India (n 1), Kenya (n 1), Norway (n 2), Portugal (n 1), Denmark (n 1), Northern Ireland (n 1), USA (n 17), UK (n 1) and Sweden (n 2).Participants:Adolescents aged 10-19 years.Results:Forty-four studies were eligible for inclusion. Adolescents with greater nutritional knowledge and food skills showed healthier dietary practices. Studies found a mixed association between food literacy and long-term healthy dietary behaviour. Two studies showed an improvement in adolescents' cooking skills and food safety knowledge; six studies showed an improvement in overall food safety knowledge; six studies showed an improvement in overall food and nutritional knowledge; and two studies showed an improvement in short-term healthy dietary behaviour.Conclusions:Food literacy interventions conducted in a secondary-school setting have demonstrated a positive impact on healthy food and nutritional knowledge. However, there appears to be limited evidence supporting food literacy interventions and long-term dietary behaviours in adolescents. More evidence-based research is required to adequately measure all domains of food literacy and more age-specific food literacy interventions.
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 | 0.031 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".