Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26851337›Full record

ArticlePreventing chronic disease2016

Assessment of a University Campus Food Environment, California, 2015.

Marilyn Tseng, Kelsey DeGreef, Madison Fishler, Rachel Gipson, Kelly Koyano, Dawn B Neill

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Healthy Food Policies Documented in University Food Service Contracts.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Prevalence of Health-Risk Behaviors and Mental Well-Being of ASEAN University Students in COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marilyn TsengCenter for Solutions Through Research in Diet & Exercise (STRIDE) and the Kinesiology Department, California Polytechnic State University, 1 Grand Ave, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407. Email: mtseng@calpoly.edu.
Kelsey DeGreefCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California.
Madison FishlerCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California.
Rachel GipsonCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California.
Kelly KoyanoCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California.
Dawn B NeillCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California.
California Polytechnic State University · USCenter for Assessment · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUniversity campuses offer an opportunity to study the extent to which modifying the food environment influences eating, but in-depth characterizations of campus food environments are needed to identify potential targets for intervention. The objective of this project was to describe the availability, accessibility, and quality of healthful food choices in dining venues and food stores at or near a public, 4-year university in California.

methodsTrained assessors used the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey for campus dining (NEMS-CD) to evaluate all 18 campus dining venues, and NEMS for stores (NEMS-S) to evaluate 2 on-campus and 37 off-campus food stores. We calculated prevalence of healthful and unhealthful constructs (eg, availability of selected food items, presence of signage encouraging healthful eating, pricing options that encourage healthful eating), based on the NEMS and compared scores across different types of venues.

resultsNEMS-CD scores ranged from 4 to 47 (mean [SD], 26.0 [14.4]) out of a possible maximum score of 97; 12% of entrées and 36% of main dish salads served in these venues were classified as healthful. NEMS-S score for the 2 on-campus food stores (24 for both) was intermediate between off-campus convenience stores (mean [SD], 12.0 [5.3]) and grocery/supermarket stores (mean [SD], 31.1 [10.0]), with a possible maximum score of 54.

conclusionStandardized environmental evaluation provides insights into both positive and negative aspects of campus community food venues. Environmental assessment identifies potential targets for modification and baseline data for designing and implementing action-oriented research aimed at improving the campus food environment's support of healthful food choices for college students.

Indexed as

CommerceNutrition AssessmentSocial EnvironmentCaliforniaFoodHumansNutrition SurveysUniversities

Identifiers

PMID26851337
PMCPMC4747435
OpenAlexW2262295933

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.