8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Towards the Implementation of a Conceptual Framework of Food and Nutrition Literacy: Providing Healthy Eating for the Population

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Existing definitions of food literacy (FL) and nutrition literacy (NL) in particular refer to individual knowledge, motivation, competences, and awareness, which determine the relationship between individuals and food, the food system, and nutrition information. Several authors proposed specific conceptualization of the terms. Nevertheless, the description of analogies and differences between FL and NL is still lacking, as is an integrated framework which highlights the meaning of the concepts. This work aims to describe and discuss evidence provided by the literature in order to develop and propose a comprehensive conceptualization of FL and NL to the scientific community. We systematically reviewed six databases, considering the search terms of FL and NL. We collected the antecedents, components, and consequences of both FL and NL. We underlined and traced similarities of the concepts as well as prerogative features through the content analysis of definitions. We obtained 14 definitions of NL and 12 definitions of FL; 42 papers presented antecedents and 53 papers contained consequences. We observed that NL could be considered a specific form of FL. In addition, we noted that the consequences of NL are included in the subset of the consequences of FL and the conceptual limits of FL correspond to the outcome of healthful diet. We conclude that FL and NL build a multifaceted concept which implies both individual and public perspectives. We propose a conceptualization which could be useful to develop an executive framework aimed at providing healthy eating for the population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

          Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            From Nutrients to Nurturance: A Conceptual Introduction to Food Well-Being

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Can We Say What Diet Is Best for Health?

              Diet is established among the most important influences on health in modern societies. Injudicious diet figures among the leading causes of premature death and chronic disease. Optimal eating is associated with increased life expectancy, dramatic reduction in lifetime risk of all chronic disease, and amelioration of gene expression. In this context, claims abound for the competitive merits of various diets relative to one another. Whereas such claims, particularly when attached to commercial interests, emphasize distinctions, the fundamentals of virtually all eating patterns associated with meaningful evidence of health benefit overlap substantially. There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding, and for many reasons such studies are unlikely. In the absence of such direct comparisons, claims for the established superiority of any one specific diet over others are exaggerated. The weight of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for variations on that theme. A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary approaches. Efforts to improve public health through diet are forestalled not for want of knowledge about the optimal feeding of Homo sapiens but for distractions associated with exaggerated claims, and our failure to convert what we reliably know into what we routinely do. Knowledge in this case is not, as of yet, power; would that it were so.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                11 December 2019
                December 2019
                : 16
                : 24
                : 5041
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy; chiara.lorini@ 123456unifi.it (C.L.); guglielmo.bonaccorsi@ 123456unifi.it (G.B.)
                [2 ]School of Specialization in Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy; chiara.milani@ 123456unifi.it
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: virginia.vettori@ 123456unifi.it ; Tel.: +39-055-275-1066
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3170-1857
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5171-4308
                Article
                ijerph-16-05041
                10.3390/ijerph16245041
                6950737
                31835678
                df16ac96-0283-4f20-a4e0-565f1ad2d1d2
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 13 November 2019
                : 09 December 2019
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                food literacy,nutrition (or nutritional) literacy,scoping review,executive framework

                Comments

                Comment on this article