Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39178404›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2024

University Food Environment Assessment Methods and Their Implications: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Alicia Anne Dahl, Lilian Ademu, Stacy Fandetti, Ryan Harris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alicia Anne DahlDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6229-0926
Lilian AdemuTexas A&M Institute for Advancing Health Through Agriculture, Texas A&M AgriLife Research Centre at El Paso, El Paso, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7395-2609
Stacy FandettiDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5349-6749
Ryan HarrisJ. Murrey Atkins Library, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3322-1371

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile the retail food environment has been well studied, research surrounding the university food environment is still emerging. Existing research suggests that university food environments can influence behavioral outcomes such as students' dietary choices, which may be maintained long-term. Despite a growing interest in assessing university food environments, there is no standardized tool for completing this task. How researchers define "healthy" when assessing university food environments needs to be clarified. This paper describes the protocol for systematically reviewing literature involving university food environment assessments.

objectiveThis paper aimed to describe the protocol for a systematic review of the assessments of university food environments. The review will summarize previously used tools or methods and their implications.

methodsElectronic databases, including PubMed (NLM), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Web of Science (Clarivate), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health) Complete (EBSCO), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and Google Scholar were searched for papers published between 2012 and 2022 using combinations of related medical subject headings terms and keywords. The electronic databases were supplemented by reviewing the reference list for all included papers and systematic reviews returned with our search results. The review will include all study types, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and other pre-post designs. Papers that examine at least 1 aspect of the university food environment, such as cafeterias, campus convenience stores, and vending machines, were considered for inclusion. A total of 2 reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, complete a full-text review, extract data, and perform a quality assessment of included papers, with a third reviewer resolving any conflicts. The Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool was used to determine the methodological quality of selected studies. A narrative and tabular summary of the findings were presented. There will not be a meta-analysis due to the methodological heterogeneity of the included papers.

resultsThe initial queries of 4502 records have been executed, and papers have been screened for inclusion. Data extractions were completed in December 2023. The results of the review were accepted for publication in May 2024. The systematic review generated from this protocol will offer evidence for using different assessment tools to examine the campus food environment.

conclusionsThis systematic review will summarize the tools and methods used to assess university food environments where many emerging adults spend a significant part of their young adult lives. The findings will highlight variations in practice and how "healthy" has been defined globally. This review will provide an understanding of this unique organizational food environment with implications for practice and policy.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023398073; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=398073. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54955.

Indexed as

Systematic Reviews as TopicHumansResearch DesignUniversitiesdietdietary choicefood assessmentfood environmenthealth behaviorlifestyle habitnutrition assessmentnutrition policyobesityretail foodtoolUnited Statesuniversitiesuniversityuniversity fooduniversity food environmentweight gainyoung adult

Identifiers

PMID39178404
PMCPMC11380064

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.