School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia.
Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge CB2 0SL, UK.
Nutrients. 2021 Jun 10;13(6):2006. doi: 10.3390/nu13062006.
(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 ( = 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 ( = 82, 15%), review articles were twice as prevalent compared to the total number of articles ( = 10, 12% vs. = 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.
(1) 背景：“食品素养”一词在全球范围内得到了广泛关注；然而，由于其定义不够明确，导致该术语的使用存在不一致性。因此，本研究旨在进行系统的范围综述，以描述“食品素养”一词的使用、范围、应用和定义随时间的变化情况。(2) 方法：按照 PRISMA-ScR 指南，在七个研究数据库中进行了检索，没有任何时间限制，截止日期为 2019 年 12 月 31 日，仅搜索了“食品素养”一词的使用情况。(3) 结果：共纳入 549 项研究。有 243 篇文章（44%）中仅使用过一次“食品素养”一词，由 41 个国家的研究人员提及。原始研究是最常见的文章类型（ = 429，78%）。食品素养发表在 72 个 Cites 学科中，其中 456 篇（83%）来自过去 5 年。在关于食品素养的文章（ = 82，15%）中，综述文章的数量是总文章数量的两倍（ = 10，12% vs. = 32，6%）。共引用了 51 种不同的食品素养定义。(4) 结论：“食品素养”在国际学术文献中已被广泛应用于不同的文章类型和学科，使用频率较高。然而，需要一个得到国际权威机构认可的标准化定义，以推动该领域的发展。
