Wilkins Emma, Radley Duncan, Morris Michelle, Hobbs Matthew, Christensen Alex, Marwa Windi Lameck, Morrin Adele, Griffiths Claire
Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Health Place. 2019 May;57:186-199. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.02.007. Epub 2019 May 3.
This systematic review quantifies methods used to measure the 'retail food environment' (RFE), appraises the quality of methodological reporting, and examines associations with obesity, accounting for differences in methods. Only spatial measures of the RFE, such as food outlet proximity were included. Across the 113 included studies, methods for measuring the RFE were extremely diverse, yet reporting of methods was poor (average reporting quality score: 58.6%). Null associations dominated across all measurement methods, comprising 76.0% of 1937 associations in total. Outcomes varied across measurement methods (e.g. narrow definitions of 'supermarket': 20.7% negative associations vs 1.7% positive; broad definitions of 'supermarket': 9.0% negative associations vs 10.4% positive). Researchers should report methods more clearly, and should articulate findings in the context of the measurement methods employed.
本系统评价对用于测量“零售食品环境”(RFE)的方法进行了量化,评估了方法学报告的质量,并研究了与肥胖的关联,同时考虑了方法上的差异。仅纳入了RFE的空间测量方法,如食品店的 proximity。在113项纳入研究中,测量RFE的方法极为多样,但方法报告情况不佳(平均报告质量得分:58.6%)。在所有测量方法中,无关联占主导,在总共1937个关联中占76.0%。不同测量方法的结果各异(例如,“超市”的狭义定义:20.7%为负关联,1.7%为正关联;“超市”的广义定义:9.0%为负关联,10.4%为正关联)。研究人员应更清晰地报告方法,并应在所用测量方法的背景下阐述研究结果。