Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38326268›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Instruments and indicators for assessing organisational food environments: a scoping review protocol.

Ana Beatriz Coelho de Azevedo, Cintia Chaves Curioni, Daniel Henrique Bandoni, Daniela Silva Canella

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Ana Beatriz Coelho de AzevedoPostgraduate Program in Food, Nutrition and Health, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Cintia Chaves CurioniDepartment of Social Nutrition, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5160-9567
Daniel Henrique BandoniCenter of Practices and Research in Nutrition and Collective Food Services, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Daniela Silva CanellaDepartment of Applied Nutrition, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil daniela.canella@uerj.br.ORCID 0000-0001-9672-4983

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany studies have explored the food environment to characterise it and understand its role in food practices. Assessment of the organisational food environment can contribute to the development of more effective interventions to promote adequate and healthy eating. However, few instruments and indicators have been developed and validated for assessing this type of setting. The systematisation of those can be useful to support the planning of future assessments and the development of wide-ranging instruments. This study aims to conduct a scoping review to systematise evidence on instruments and indicators for assessing organisational food environments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review was planned according to the methodological framework for scoping reviews proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and subsequently enhanced by Levac ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is based on the analysis of published scientific literature and did not involve patients, medical research, or any type of personal information; therefore, no ethical approval was obtained for this study. The results of this scoping review will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal, preferably open access.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchChecklistDatabases, FactualDiet, HealthyFoodHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicDecision MakingEPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIESNUTRITION & DIETETICSPsychometricsPUBLIC HEALTHSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38326268
PMCPMC10860112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.