Tracing the undercurrents: a scoping review of the lifestyle drift concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lifestyle drift refers to the tendency for health interventions that are initially intended to address upstream social determinants of health to shift focus toward downstream efforts targeting individual behaviours. Although increasingly cited in the literature, as far as we are aware, no scoping or systematic reviews that examine the concept of lifestyle drift exist. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the existing literature on lifestyle drift, describe how it is defined in the literature, the causes or mechanisms of influence that lead to lifestyle drift and ways to address it. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was developed with guidance from a librarian and seven databases were searched. Title and abstract and full text screening was conducted in Covidence according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included documents were imported into NVivo, and data from articles were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: We identified 318 articles and 32 met the inclusion criteria with lifestyle drift as a focus or major theme. Definitions of lifestyle drift shared some common elements along with variability of concepts. Neoliberalism and the biomedical model were frequently identified as drivers of lifestyle drift across articles. While many strategies to counteract lifestyle drift were proposed, applying a health in all policies approach, and participation from priority populations were the most common strategies suggested. CONCLUSION: While lifestyle drift is a recognized concern in public health, health promotion and chronic disease prevention, there remains a need for more empirical research on lifestyle drift, including mechanisms and mitigation. Strengthening understanding of how to identify, prevent, and address lifestyle drift may enhance the effectiveness of upstream interventions aimed at reducing health inequities.
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 | 0.115 | 0.290 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.046 | 0.041 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".