Suppr超能文献

饮食诱导的实验性政策干预的公平性影响:系统评价。

Equity Effects of Dietary Nudging Field Experiments: Systematic Review.

机构信息

Faculty 11, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.

出版信息

Front Public Health. 2021 Jul 23;9:668998. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.668998. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Dietary behaviours are among the key modifiable risk factors for non-communicable diseases. Importantly, dietary behaviours vary substantially between groups and individuals with different socioeconomic positions, with more disadvantaged groups and individuals being exposed to more dietary risk factors. The goal of this review is to summarise the existing research on equity effects of dietary nudging interventions. Systematic review of nudging interventions conducted in a field setting that report an observable indicator of dietary behaviour, include a control group, and report effect sizes stratified by indicators of socioeconomic status as outlined in the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Two databases (scopus, Pubmed) were searched (last search June 2021), and 18 articles with 19 studies (k = 46 equity comparisons) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Due to heterogeneity in equity dimensions and study outcomes, a harvest plot was used to summarise data. The majority of equity comparisons (38 out of 46) were available for cognitive nudges. Most of these (22 out of 38 comparisons) found that cognitive nudges worked equally well in more and less disadvantaged populations; however, in 12 out of the 38 comparisons, they favoured those who were less disadvantaged. Two out of four comparisons on behavioural nudges favoured more disadvantaged persons. The differential effects of dietary nudging interventions in this review can contribute to increases in health inequalities. At the same time, a substantial number of interventions showed no equity effects. Importantly, this review suggests that more research on nudging interventions and health equity is needed. Future interventions should report effect sizes stratified by indicators of social inequality. PROSPERO (CRD42019137469).

摘要

饮食习惯是非传染性疾病的主要可改变风险因素之一。重要的是,不同社会经济地位的群体和个体之间的饮食习惯存在很大差异,处于不利地位的群体和个体面临更多的饮食风险因素。本综述的目的是总结现有的关于饮食促进干预公平性影响的研究。 在实地进行的促进干预的系统评价,报告了饮食行为的可观察指标,包括对照组,并根据 PROGRESS-Plus 框架中概述的社会经济地位指标报告了效应大小。两个数据库(scopus、Pubmed)进行了搜索(最后一次搜索是在 2021 年 6 月),共纳入了 18 篇文章的 19 项研究(k=46 项公平性比较)。使用 ROBINS-I 工具评估偏倚风险。由于公平维度和研究结果的异质性,使用 harvest plot 对数据进行了总结。 大多数公平性比较(46 个中的 38 个)可用于认知促进。其中大多数(38 个比较中的 22 个)发现认知促进对处于较不利地位和较有利地位的人群同样有效;然而,在 38 个比较中的 12 个中,它们对那些处于较不利地位的人有利。行为促进方面的四个比较中有两个有利于处境不利的人。 本综述中饮食促进干预的差异效应可能导致健康不平等加剧。与此同时,大量干预措施没有公平效果。重要的是,本综述表明,需要对促进干预和健康公平进行更多的研究。未来的干预措施应报告按社会不平等指标分层的效应大小。 PROSPERO(CRD42019137469)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/34fd/8342848/0f91f68d534f/fpubh-09-668998-g0001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验