scholarly journals Are We Closer to International Consensus on the Term ‘Food Literacy’?: A Systematic Scoping Review of Its Use in the Academic Literature (1998–2019)

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 2006
Author(s):  
Courtney Thompson ◽  
Jean Adams ◽  
Helen Anna Vidgen
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
International Agency ◽  
Original Research ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Food Literacy ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Article Type ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Over Time

(1) Background: The term ‘food literacy’ has gained momentum globally; however, a lack of clarity around its definition has resulted in inconsistencies in use of the term. Therefore, the objective was to conduct a systematic scoping review to describe the use, reach, application and definitions of the term ‘food literacy’ over time. (2) Methods: A search was conducted using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines in seven research databases without any date limitations up to 31 December 2019, searching simply for use of the term ‘food literacy’. (3) Results: Five hundred and forty-nine studies were included. The term ‘food literacy’ was used once in 243 articles (44%) and mentioned by researchers working in 41 countries. Original research was the most common article type (n = 429, 78%). Food literacy was published across 72 In Cites disciplines, with 456 (83%) articles from the last 5 years. In articles about food literacy (n = 82, 15%), review articles were twice as prevalent compared to the total number of articles (n = 10, 12% vs. n = 32, 6%). Fifty-one different definitions of food literacy were cited. (4) Conclusions: ‘Food literacy’ has been used frequently and broadly across differing article types and disciplines in academic literature internationally. However, agreement on a standardised definition of food literacy endorsed by a peak international agency is needed in order to progress the field.

scholarly journals Medicalization Defined in Empirical Contexts – A Scoping Review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wieteke van Dijk ◽  
Marjan J. Meinders ◽  
Marit A.C. Tanke ◽  
Gert P. Westert ◽  
Patrick P.T. Jeurissen
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
The Other ◽  
Shared Understanding ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Over Time

Background: Medicalization has been a topic of discussion and research for over four decades. It is a known concept to researchers from a broad range of disciplines. Medicalization appears to be a concept that speaks to all, suggesting a shared understanding of what it constitutes. However, conceptually, the definition of medicalization has evolved over time. It is unknown how the concept is applied in empirical research, therefore following research question was answered: How is medicalization defined in empirical research and how do the definitions differ from each other? Methods: We performed a scoping review on the empirical research on medicalization. The 5 steps of a scoping review were followed: (1) Identifying the research question; (2) Identifying relevant studies; (3) Inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) Charting the data; and (5) Collating, summarizing and reporting the results. The screening of 3027 papers resulted in the inclusion of 50 empirical studies in the review. Results: The application of the concept of medicalization within empirical studies proved quite diverse. The used conceptual definitions could be divided into 10 categories, which differed from each other subtly though importantly. The ten categories could be placed in a framework, containing two axes. The one axe represents a continuum from value neutral definitions to value laden definitions. The other axe represents a continuum from a micro to a macro perspective on medicalization. Conclusion: This review shows that empirical research on medicalization is quite heterogeneous in its definition of the concept. This reveals the richness and complexity of medicalization, once more, but also hinders the comparability of studies. Future empirical research should pay more attention to the choice made with regard to the definition of medialization and its applicability to the context of the study.

scholarly journals Authorship growth in contemporary medical literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 205031212091539
Author(s):  
Julie Y An ◽  
Rachel J Marchalik ◽  
Rachael L Sherrer ◽  
Joseph A Baiocco ◽  
Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Keyword(s):  
Medical Literature ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Article Type ◽  
Multivariable Regression ◽  
Analysis Platform

Objectives: The aims of this study were to investigate authorship trends among publications in high-impact, peer-reviewed specialty journals published within the last decade and to assess how publication practices differ among medical specialties. Methods: The National Institutes of Health’s Portfolio Analysis platform, iCite, was queried for PubMed-indexed case reports, review articles, and original research articles published between 2005 and 2017 in 69 high-impact, clinical journals encompassing 23 medical specialties. Overall, 121,397 peer-reviewed publications were evaluated—of which, 45.1% were original research, 28.7% were review articles, and 26.3% were case reports. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the magnitude of association of publication year on the number of authors per article by specialty and article type. Results: Original research articles have the greatest increase in authorship (0.23 more authors per article per year), as compared with review articles (0.18 authors per article per year) and case reports (0.01 authors per article per year). Twenty-two of the 23 specialties evaluated had increase in authorship in high-impact specialty journals. Specialty growth rates ranged from 0.42 authors/year (Neurology), Psychiatry (0.35 authors/year), General Surgery (0.29 authors/year), Urology (0.27 authors/year), and Pathology (0.27 authors/year). Specialties with a greater percentage of graduates entering academics had more authors per article; surgical specialties and length of residency were not found to be predictive factors. Conclusion: There has been substantial growth in the authorship bylines of contemporary medical literature, much of which cannot be explained by increased complexity or collaboration alone.

Bullying in Nursing: Is it in the Eye of the Beholder?

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Hartin ◽  
Melanie Birks ◽  
David Lindsay
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Workplace Bullying ◽  
Nursing Profession ◽  
Exact Nature ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Nursing Literature ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Over Time

The nursing profession is presented with numerous definitions of workplace bullying. This study provides an in-depth analysis of the concept of bullying in the nursing profession in Australia through a scoping review of definitions presented in literature published up until 2018. The research questions used to guide the search were as follows: How has the definition of bullying in nursing in Australia been conceptualized in the literature? How do these definitions of bullying differ? How has the definition of bullying, as used in the literature, evolved over time? The review was informed by the approach of Arksey and O’Malley, containing explicit definitions of bullying in nursing literature. The findings reveal that the literature does not reflect a shared and integrated vision of the exact nature of bullying in the nursing profession. The conceptualization of bullying in the nursing profession has become more dynamic over time. The myriad ways in which bullying in nursing is defined in Australia has important implications for research, practice, education, and policy.

scholarly journals Overdiagnosis across medical disciplines: a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e018448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Jenniskens ◽  
Joris A H de Groot ◽  
Johannes B Reitsma ◽  
Karel G M Moons ◽  
Lotty Hooft ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
English Studies ◽  
Extensive Discussion ◽  
Article Type ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Medical Disciplines

ObjectiveTo provide insight into how and in what clinical fields overdiagnosis is studied and give directions for further applied and methodological research.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesMedline up to August 2017.Study selectionAll English studies on humans, in which overdiagnosis was discussed as a dominant theme.Data extractionStudies were assessed on clinical field, study aim (ie, methodological or non-methodological), article type (eg, primary study, review), the type and role of diagnostic test(s) studied and the context in which these studies discussed overdiagnosis.ResultsFrom 4896 studies, 1851 were included for analysis. Half of all studies on overdiagnosis were performed in the field of oncology (50%). Other prevalent clinical fields included mental disorders, infectious diseases and cardiovascular diseases accounting for 9%, 8% and 6% of studies, respectively. Overdiagnosis was addressed from a methodological perspective in 20% of studies. Primary studies were the most common article type (58%). The type of diagnostic tests most commonly studied were imaging tests (32%), although these were predominantly seen in oncology and cardiovascular disease (84%). Diagnostic tests were studied in a screening setting in 43% of all studies, but as high as 75% of all oncological studies. The context in which studies addressed overdiagnosis related most frequently to its estimation, accounting for 53%. Methodology on overdiagnosis estimation and definition provided a source for extensive discussion. Other contexts of discussion included definition of disease, overdiagnosis communication, trends in increasing disease prevalence, drivers and consequences of overdiagnosis, incidental findings and genomics.ConclusionsOverdiagnosis is discussed across virtually all clinical fields and in different contexts. The variability in characteristics between studies and lack of consensus on overdiagnosis definition indicate the need for a uniform typology to improve coherence and comparability of studies on overdiagnosis.

scholarly journals Financial Literacy and Sustainable Consumer Behavior

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ester Muñoz-Céspedes ◽  
Raquel Ibar-Alonso ◽  
Sara Lorenzo-Ros
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Financial Literacy ◽  
Sustainable Consumption ◽  
Sustainable Society ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Financial Products ◽  
Sustainable Behavior ◽  
Definition Of

A more sustainable society and economy also implies a more sustainable behavior in the consumption of financial products. A possible change in focus can come from the demand side, so that more sustainable consumption of financial products have to go hand to hand with financial literacy. However, financial literacy, potential favoring of this sustainable behavior, is far from reaching an international consensus about its definition, object and scope. Two objectives are analyzed; the different interpretations of financial literacy in the academic literature, as well as its evolution and how, in what context and with what other concepts the term is used in social networks. Scientometric techniques and content analysis have been used to carry out a systematic review of literature and also NLP to analyze the comments on Social Networks. Critical moments are identified in the definition of financial literacy. Also ten sentiments are analyzed in social networks in wich positivity, trust, and anticipation predominate. Greater attention to this issue is necessary both from the private initiative and from public policies, so that financial literacy is an effective tool for a more sustainable behavior by consumers. Finally, a new definition is proposed based on our findings.

scholarly journals Utilizing a Multi-Step Consensus-Building Process to Create a Shared Departmental Definition of Community Engagement

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Kerry K Fierke ◽  
Laura C Palombi
Keyword(s):  
Community Engagement ◽  
Shared Vision ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Shared Understanding ◽  
Common Goal ◽  
Article Type ◽  
Building Process ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Common Understanding

A multidisciplinary department at a College of Pharmacy utilized a multi-step consensus-building process to create a shared departmental definition of community engagement that was consistent with the department’s mission and vision. Throughout the consensus building and engaged department process, faculty and staff were given opportunities to participate in community-engaged work and departmental activities, including updates in regular scheduled department meetings. This allowed faculty to have a reference and common understanding of the concept of community engagement when striving towards outlined promotion objectives. A shared understanding of what constitutes community engagement was necessary to ensure that all members of the interdisciplinary department are working toward a common goal and shared vision.   Article Type: Original Research

The Distinction between [P] and [S]

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Galen Strawson
Keyword(s):  
Personal Identity ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Over Time

This chapter examines the difference between John Locke's definition of a person [P], considered as a kind of thing, and his definition of a subject of experience of a certain sophisticated sort [S]. It first discusses the equation [P] = [S], where [S] is assumed to be a continuing thing that is able to survive radical change of substantial realization, as well as Locke's position about consciousness in relation to [P]'s identity or existence over time as [S]. It argues that Locke is not guilty of circularity because he is not proposing consciousness as the determinant of [S]'s identity over time, but only of [S]'s moral and legal responsibility over time. Finally, it suggests that the terms “Person” and “Personal identity” pull apart, in Locke's scheme of things, but in a perfectly coherent way.

Establishing a Working Definition of User Experience for eHealth Interventions: A Scoping Review of Self-Reported User Experience Measures and Delphi Consultation with eHealth Researchers and Adolescents (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda S Newton ◽  
Sonja March ◽  
Nicole D Gehring ◽  
Arlen K Rowe ◽  
Ashley D Radomski
Keyword(s):  
User Experience ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
Perceived Impact ◽  
Behavioural Factors ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Ehealth Intervention

BACKGROUND Across eHealth intervention studies involving children, adolescents, and their parents, researchers have measured users’ experiences to assist with intervention development, refinement, and evaluation. To date, there are no widely agreed-on definitions or measures of ‘user experience’ to support a standardized approach for evaluation and comparison within or across interventions. OBJECTIVE We conducted a scoping review with subsequent Delphi consultation to (1) identify how user experience is defined and measured in eHealth research studies, (2) characterize the measurement tools used, and (3) establish working definitions for domains of user experience that could be used in future eHealth evaluations. METHODS We systematically searched electronic databases for published and gray literature available from January 1, 2005 to April 11, 2019. Studies assessing an eHealth intervention that targeted any health condition and was designed for use by children, adolescents, and their parents were eligible for inclusion. eHealth interventions needed to be web-, computer-, or mobile-based, mediated by the internet with some degree of interactivity. Studies were also required to report the measurement of ‘user experience’ as first-person experiences, involving cognitive and behavioural factors, reported by intervention users. Two reviewers independently screened studies for relevance and appraised the quality of user experience measures using published criteria: ‘well-established’, ‘approaching well-established’, ‘promising’, or ‘not yet established’. We conducted a descriptive analysis of how user experience was defined and measured in each study. Review findings subsequently informed the survey questions used in the Delphi consultations with eHealth researchers and adolescent users for how user experience should be defined and measured. RESULTS Of the 8,634 articles screened for eligibility, 129 and one erratum were included in the review. Thirty eHealth researchers and 27 adolescents participated in the Delphi consultations. Based on the literature and consultations, we proposed working definitions for six main user experience domains: acceptability, satisfaction, credibility, usability, user-reported adherence, and perceived impact. While most studies incorporated a study-specific measure, we identified ten well-established measures to quantify five of the six domains of user experience (all except for self-reported adherence). Our adolescent and researcher participants ranked perceived impact as one of the most important domains of user experience and usability as one of the least important domains. Rankings between adolescents and researchers diverged for other domains. CONCLUSIONS Findings highlight the various ways user experience has been defined and measured across studies and what aspects are most valued by researchers and adolescent users. We propose incorporating the working definitions and available measures of user experience to support consistent evaluation and reporting of outcomes across studies. Future studies can refine the definitions and measurement of user experience, explore how user experience relates to other eHealth outcomes, and inform the design and use of human-centred eHealth interventions.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUDICIAL DEFINITION OF MATERIALITY

1990 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
LuAnn Bean ◽  
Deborah W. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Court Cases ◽  
Accounting Profession ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Over Time

Determining what should be considered a material item has been a problem for both the accounting profession and the courts. By reviewing the court cases involving the issue of materiality, the authors have determined where differences in the materiality standard as applied by the courts exist. The judicial definition of materiality has developed over time, and current trends with important variations are observed. Based upon the authors' analysis, the following judicial definition of materiality, with its possible variations, is suggested: Would the reasonable (or speculative) investor (or layman) consider important (or be influenced by) this information in determining his course of action?

Decision Processes and Value Endogeneity

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James G. March
Keyword(s):  
Decision Processes ◽  
Hard Problem ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Over Time ◽  
What Matters

Humans use reasons to shape and justify choices. In the process, trade-offs seem essential and often inevitable. But trade-offs involve comparisons, which are problematic both across values and especially over time. Reducing disparate values to a common metric (especially if that metric is money) is often problematic and unsatisfactory. Critically, it is not that values just shape choices, but that choices themselves shape values. This endogeneity of values makes an unconditional normative endorsement of modern decision-theoretic rationality unwise. This is a hard problem and there is no escaping the definition of good values, that is, those that make humans better. This removes the wall between economics and philosophy. If we are to adopt and enact this perspective, then greater discourse and debate on what matters and not just what counts will be useful and even indispensable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document