Improving student diet and food security in higher education using participatory and co-creation approaches: a systematic review.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Tamar Assilian, Henri Dehove, Hélène Charreire, Julia Baudry, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Sandrine Péneau, Chantal Julia, Olivia Gross, Jean-Michel Oppert, Alice Bellicha
{"title":"Improving student diet and food security in higher education using participatory and co-creation approaches: a systematic review.","authors":"Tamar Assilian, Henri Dehove, Hélène Charreire, Julia Baudry, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Sandrine Péneau, Chantal Julia, Olivia Gross, Jean-Michel Oppert, Alice Bellicha","doi":"10.1186/s12966-024-01613-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Higher education students are an important target group for public health nutrition interventions. When designing tailored and contextually relevant interventions, participatory and co-creation approaches are increasingly recognized as promising but their use and effectiveness has not been assessed in this type of population. We systematically reviewed interventions aiming to improve dietary quality and/or food security in higher education settings with the aims 1) to identify and describe their participatory and co-creation approaches and 2) to compare the effectiveness of interventions using or not using participatory and co-creation approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our search in PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, EMBASE was performed in January 2023 and yielded 3658 unique records, out of which 42 articles (66 interventions) were included. Effectiveness of interventions was assessed at the individual level (longitudinal evaluations) or at the group level (repeated cross-sectional evaluations). A five-level classification was used to describe a continuum of engagement from students and other partners in the intervention design and implementation: no participation (level one), consultation, co-production, co-design and co-creation (levels two to five). To synthetize effectiveness, comparisons were made between studies without participation (level one) or with participation (levels two-five).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten (24%) out of 42 studies used a participatory and co-creation approach (levels two-five). Studies using a participatory and co-creation approach reported a positive finding on individual-level outcome (i.e. overall diet quality or food group intake or food security) in 5/13 (38%) intervention arms (vs 13/31 or 42% for those without participation). Studies using a participatory and co-creation approach reported a positive finding on group-level outcomes (i.e. food choices in campus food outlets) in 4/7 (57%) (vs 8/23 or 35% in those without participation).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participatory and co-creation approaches may improve the effectiveness of nutrition interventions in higher education settings but the level of evidence remains very limited. More research is warranted to identify best co-creation practices when designing, implementing and evaluating nutritional interventions in the higher education setting.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration number CRD42023393004.</p>","PeriodicalId":50336,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity","volume":"21 1","pages":"71"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11232249/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01613-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Higher education students are an important target group for public health nutrition interventions. When designing tailored and contextually relevant interventions, participatory and co-creation approaches are increasingly recognized as promising but their use and effectiveness has not been assessed in this type of population. We systematically reviewed interventions aiming to improve dietary quality and/or food security in higher education settings with the aims 1) to identify and describe their participatory and co-creation approaches and 2) to compare the effectiveness of interventions using or not using participatory and co-creation approaches.

Methods: Our search in PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, EMBASE was performed in January 2023 and yielded 3658 unique records, out of which 42 articles (66 interventions) were included. Effectiveness of interventions was assessed at the individual level (longitudinal evaluations) or at the group level (repeated cross-sectional evaluations). A five-level classification was used to describe a continuum of engagement from students and other partners in the intervention design and implementation: no participation (level one), consultation, co-production, co-design and co-creation (levels two to five). To synthetize effectiveness, comparisons were made between studies without participation (level one) or with participation (levels two-five).

Results: Ten (24%) out of 42 studies used a participatory and co-creation approach (levels two-five). Studies using a participatory and co-creation approach reported a positive finding on individual-level outcome (i.e. overall diet quality or food group intake or food security) in 5/13 (38%) intervention arms (vs 13/31 or 42% for those without participation). Studies using a participatory and co-creation approach reported a positive finding on group-level outcomes (i.e. food choices in campus food outlets) in 4/7 (57%) (vs 8/23 or 35% in those without participation).

Conclusions: Participatory and co-creation approaches may improve the effectiveness of nutrition interventions in higher education settings but the level of evidence remains very limited. More research is warranted to identify best co-creation practices when designing, implementing and evaluating nutritional interventions in the higher education setting.

Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42023393004.

利用参与和共创方法改善高等教育中学生的饮食和食品安全:系统性综述。
背景:高校学生是公共卫生营养干预措施的重要目标群体。在设计有针对性的、与环境相关的干预措施时,参与式和共同创造的方法越来越被认为是有前景的,但其在这类人群中的使用和有效性尚未得到评估。我们系统地回顾了旨在改善高等教育环境中饮食质量和/或食品安全的干预措施,目的是:1)确定并描述其参与式和共同创造式方法;2)比较使用或未使用参与式和共同创造式方法的干预措施的有效性:我们于 2023 年 1 月在 PubMed、Google Scholar、Web of Science 和 EMBASE 中进行了搜索,共获得 3658 条唯一记录,其中 42 篇文章(66 项干预措施)被纳入其中。干预措施的有效性在个人层面(纵向评估)或群体层面(重复横向评估)进行评估。采用了五级分类法来描述学生和其他合作伙伴参与干预措施设计和实施的连续性:无参与(一级)、咨询、共同制作、共同设计和共同创造(二至五级)。为了对有效性进行综合,对没有参与(第一级)或有参与(第二至第五级)的研究进行了比较:在 42 项研究中,有 10 项(24%)采用了参与和共同创造方法(第二至第五级)。采用参与和共同创造方法的研究报告称,5/13(38%)项干预措施对个人层面的结果(即总体饮食质量或食物种类摄入量或食品安全)产生了积极影响(相对于 13/31 或 42% 的未参与干预措施)。采用参与和共同创造方法的研究报告称,4/7(57%)的研究对群体层面的结果(即校园食品店的食物选择)有积极的发现(未参与的研究报告为 8/23 或 35%):结论:参与和共同创造的方法可以提高高等教育环境中营养干预措施的有效性,但证据水平仍然非常有限。在设计、实施和评估高等教育环境中的营养干预措施时,有必要开展更多研究,以确定最佳的共同创造实践:试验注册:PROSPERO 注册号 CRD42023393004。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
138
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (IJBNPA) is an open access, peer-reviewed journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain. IJBNPA is devoted to furthering the understanding of the behavioral aspects of diet and physical activity and is unique in its inclusion of multiple levels of analysis, including populations, groups and individuals and its inclusion of epidemiology, and behavioral, theoretical and measurement research areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信