FOODLIT-PRO: Food literacy domains, influential factors and determinants—A qualitative study

Poor eating habits are increasing the prevalence of weight-related issues, such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Given the demand to improve individuals’ food knowledge and competencies aiming at healthier behaviours, the current investigation explores the concept of food literacy. Considering the lack of a shared understanding of food literacy, this study aims to explore food literacy’s domains, influential factors and determinants. Using a qualitative deductive-dominant content analysis, 30 experts from food-related fields were interviewed. The obtained outcomes were compared to available food literacy frameworks. Agreement among inter-raters was nearly perfect (k = 0.82). Yielding a total of 184 codes nested within 19 categories, identified domains were Origin, Safety, Choice and Decision, Select and Acquire, Plan, Preserve, Prepare, Cook, and Knowledge; influential factors included Nutrition, Psychological, Health, Learning Contexts, Policy, Industry, Sustainability, and Social and Cultural; External determinants were “Access to Food-Related Information”, “Perishable and/or Unreliable Food-Related Information”, “Family Dynamic and/or Identity”, and “Professionals’ Unpreparedness on Food-Related Expertise”, and Internal determinants included “Prioritise Food”, “Convenience and Practicality”, “Time and Financial Management”, “Previous Food-Related Habits”, and “Innate and Learned Flavour Preferences”. In conclusion, more than half of the identified attributes (62.5%) are corroborated by the current literature. However, the manifested content unmatched with the current frameworks of food literacy literature express food-literacy-related fields of action, knowledge, competencies, and determinants that have not yet been explored. As such, this study provides new and useful information concerning food literacy definition and development, by identifying its domains, factors of influence, and potential determinants. Moreover, this work paves the way for new measurements and interventions within this field

Two ways to Grid: the contribution of Open Grid Services Architecture (OGSA) mechanisms to service-centric and resource-centric lifecycles

Service Oriented Architectures (SOAs) support service lifecycle tasks, including Development, Deployment, Discovery and Use. We observe that there are two disparate ways to use Grid SOAs such as the Open Grid Services Architecture (OGSA) as exemplified in the Globus Toolkit (GT3/4). One is a traditional enterprise SOA use where end-user services are developed, deployed and resourced behind firewalls, for use by external consumers: a service-centric (or ‘first-order’) approach. The other supports end-user development, deployment, and resourcing of applications across organizations via the use of execution and resource management services: A Resource-centric (or ‘second-order’) approach. We analyze and compare the two approaches using a combination of empirical experiments and an architectural evaluation methodology (scenario, mechanism, and quality attributes) to reveal common and distinct strengths and weaknesses. The impact of potential improvements (which are likely to be manifested by GT4) is estimated, and opportunities for alternative architectures and technologies explored. We conclude by investigating if the two approaches can be converged or combined, and if they are compatible on shared resources

Theoretical development and social capital measurement

Chapter 4, by Sarah Hean and colleagues, highlights the importance of theory development in making the concept useful to the practice of public health. The authors present an innovative way of thinking about the different facets of social capital, describe the development of a survey instrument that attempts to make explicit the inputs and outputs of social capital and describe how these can be operationalised in a practice setting. The survey tool takes account of the dynamic nature of social capital and offers a useful way of evaluating community projects