Dataset Information

Just a subtle difference? Findings from a systematic review on definitions of nutrition literacy and food literacy.

ABSTRACT: Nutrition literacy and food literacy have become increasingly important concepts in health promotion. Researchers use one or the other term to describe the competencies needed to maintain a healthy diet. This systematic review examines whether these terms are synonymous or if their meanings are substantially different.We searched major bibliographic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, SocIndex and ERIC) for publications that provided an original definition of nutrition or food literacy. Then we used Nutbeam's tripartite health literacy model as an analytical grid. The definitions we found included specific competencies, which we mapped to the domains of functional, interactive, or critical literacy.In the 173 full-text publications we screened, we found six original definitions of nutrition literacy, and 13 original definitions of food literacy. Seven food literacy definitions were integrated into a conceptual framework. Analysing their structure revealed that nutrition literacy and food literacy are seen as specific forms of health literacy, and represent distinct but complementary concepts. Definitions of nutrition literacy mainly described the abilities necessary to obtain and understand nutrition information. Definitions of food literacy incorporated a broader spectrum of theoretical and practical knowledge and skills. To be food literate also means to apply information on food choices and critically reflect on the effect of food choice on personal health and on society. Since food literacy is based on a more comprehensive understanding of health behaviours, it is the more viable term to use in health promotion interventions. For the practical implication, a harmonization of the different definitions is desirable.

SUBMITTER: Krause C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6005107 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Just a subtle difference? Findings from a systematic review on definitions of nutrition literacy and food literacy.

Krause Corinna C Sommerhalder Kathrin K Beer-Borst Sigrid S Abel Thomas T

Health promotion international 20180601 3

Nutrition literacy and food literacy have become increasingly important concepts in health promotion. Researchers use one or the other term to describe the competencies needed to maintain a healthy diet. This systematic review examines whether these terms are synonymous or if their meanings are substantially different.We searched major bibliographic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, SocIndex and ERIC) for publications that provided an original definition of nutrition or f ...[more]

PMID: 27803197

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFood and nutrition literacy is a newly emerged concept to connect food-related knowledge and skills to healthy diets. Its promotion is important to protect children as they eat too many low-nutrient, high-energy foods. Food and nutrition literacy promotion needs multi-dimensional interventions. In the process of developing an intervention to promote food and nutrition literacy, the present review protocol aims to critically examine the evidence in the area of school-based interventions for promoting food and nutrition literacy (FNLIT) in elementary school children.MethodsWe will search PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ProQuest (from inception onwards). Additional studies will be identified through manual searching of reference lists. Quantitative studies (e.g., randomized controlled trial, quasi-randomized trials, and cluster randomized trials) evaluating the effect of interventions to promote food and nutrition literacy in elementary school children (5-12?years old) will be included. Main outcomes will be food and nutrition literacy at functional, interactive, and critical levels. Secondary outcomes will be dietary intake indicators (e.g., healthy eating index, DDS) and health outcome measures (e.g., reduction in BMI and less weight gain). Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The study methodological quality (or bias) will be appraised using appropriate tools. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis. The quality of the included studies will separately evaluate using the validated Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP). Data will be extracted by two reviewers from the identified relevant literature. Standard data synthesis and analysis will be used for the review.DiscussionThis systematic review will summarize the evidence regarding the components, implementation methods, and effectiveness of the interventions of food and nutrition literacy promotion in elementary school children. The results of this review will provide a useful reference for policymakers and curriculum developers to assess education curricula and develop practical learning and teaching strategies to improve students' food and nutrition literacy.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (CRD42019135118).

Project description:ObjectivesThe way health literacy is understood (conceptualised) should be closely linked to how it is measured (operationalised). This study aimed to gain insights into how health literacy is defined and measured in current health literacy research and to examine the relationship between health literacy definitions and instruments.DesignSystematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.Data sourcesThe MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC and CINAHL databases were searched for articles published during two randomly selected months (March and October) in 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included articles with a quantitative design that measured health literacy, were peer-reviewed and original, were published in the English language and included a study population older than 16 years.Data extraction and synthesisSix researchers screened the articles for eligibility and extracted the data independently. All health literacy definitions and instruments were considered in relation to category 1 (describing basic reading and writing skills, disease-specific knowledge and practical skills) and category 2 (social health literacy competence and the ability to interpret and critically assess health information). The categories were inspired by Nutbeam's descriptions of the different health literacy levels.Results120 articles were included in the review: 60 within public health and 60 within clinical health. The majority of the articles (n=77) used instruments from category 1. In total, 79 of the studies provided a health literacy definition; of these, 71 were in category 2 and 8 were in category 1. In almost half of the studies (n=38), health literacy was defined in a broad perspective (category 2) but measured with a more narrow focus (category 1).ConclusionDue to the high degree of inconsistency between health literacy definitions and instruments in current health literacy research, there is a risk of missing important information about health literacy considered be important to the initial understanding of the concept recognised in the studies.Prospero registration numberCRD42020179699.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health literacy research seems to lack a consensus on what aspects to include into literacy in the context of health and on how to operationalize these concepts for measurement purposes. In addition to health literacy, several other concepts, such as electronic health (eHealth) literacy and mental health literacy, have been developed across disciplines. This study examines how these different concepts are used when studying health-related competencies in Web contexts. OBJECTIVE:This study systematically reviews health literacy concepts and definitions and their operationalization in studies focused on Web-based health information environments. METHODS:A systematic literature search was conducted in April 2016 in 6 electronic databases with a limitation to articles in English published between January 2011 and April 2016. Altogether, 1289 unique records were identified and screened according to the predefined inclusion criteria: (1) original, peer-reviewed research articles written in English; (2) the topic of the article concerned literacy in the context of health; (3) informants of the study were lay people, not health professionals or students of the field; and (4) the focus of the study was placed on an Web-based information environment. In total, 180 full texts were screened, of which 68 were included in the review. The studies were analyzed with an emphasis on the used health literacy concepts and measures. RESULTS:On the basis of the included studies, several concepts are in use when studying health-related literacy in Web environments, eHealth literacy and health literacy being the most common ones. The reviewed studies represent a variety of disciplines, but mostly medical sciences. Typically, quantitative research methods are used. On the basis of the definitions for health literacy, 3 thematic categories were identified: general and skill-based, multidimensional, and domain-specific health literacy. Most studies adopted a domain-specific concept, followed by the ones that used a general and skill-based concept. Multidimensional concepts occurred least frequently. The general health literacy concepts were usually operationalized with reading comprehension measures, the domain-specific concepts with self-efficacy measures, and multidimensional concepts with several types of measures. However, inconsistencies in operationalization were identified. CONCLUSIONS:The results show that in studies conducted in Web-based information environments, several different health literacy concepts are in use, and there is no clear consensus on the definitions for these concepts. Future studies should place emphasis on the conceptual development of health literacy in Web contexts to gain better results on operationalization for measurement. Researchers are encouraged to provide clear operational definitions for the concepts they use to ensure transparency in reporting.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The concept of physical literacy has received increased research and international attention recently. Where intervention programs and empirical research are gaining momentum, their operationalizations differ significantly. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to inform practice in the measure/assessment of physical literacy via a systematic review of research that has assessed physical literacy (up to 14 June, 2017). METHODS:Five databases were searched using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols guidelines, with 32 published articles meeting the inclusion criteria. English-language, peer-reviewed published papers containing empirical studies of physical literacy were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS:Qualitative methods included: (1) interviews; (2) open-ended questionnaires; (3) reflective diaries; (4) focus groups; (5) participant observations; and (6) visual methods. Quantitative methods included: (1) monitoring devices (e.g., accelerometers); (2) observations (e.g., of physical activity or motor proficiency); (3) psychometrics (e.g., enjoyment, self-perceptions); (4) performance measures (e.g., exergaming, objective times/distances); (5) anthropometric measurements; and (6) one compound measure. Of the measures that made an explicit distinction: 22 (61%) examined the physical domain, eight (22%) the affective domain; five (14%) the cognitive domain; and one (3%) combined three domains (physical, affective, and cognitive) of physical literacy. Researchers tended to declare their philosophical standpoint significantly more in qualitative research compared with quantitative research. CONCLUSIONS:Current research adopts diverse often incompatible methodologies in measuring/assessing physical literacy. Our analysis revealed that by adopting simplistic and linear methods, physical literacy cannot be measured/assessed in a traditional/conventional sense. Therefore, we recommend that researchers are more creative in developing integrated philosophically aligned approaches to measuring/assessing physical literacy. Future research should consider the most recent developments in the field of physical literacy for policy formation.

Dataset Information

Just a subtle difference? Findings from a systematic review on definitions of nutrition literacy and food literacy.

Publications

Just a subtle difference? Findings from a systematic review on definitions of nutrition literacy and food literacy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets