Are We Closer to International Consensus on the Term 'Food Literacy'? A Systematic Scoping Review of Its Use in the Academic Literature (1998-2019).

(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 (n = 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 (n = 82, 15%), review articles were twice as prevalent compared to the total number of articles (n = 10, 12% vs. n = 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

Are We Closer to International Consensus on the Term ‘Food Literacy’?: A Systematic Scoping Review of Its Use in the Academic Literature (1998–2019)

(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 (n = 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 (n = 82, 15%), review articles were twice as prevalent compared to the total number of articles (n = 10, 12% vs. n = 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

Progressing the development of a food literacy questionnaire using cognitive interviews.

OBJECTIVE: Food literacy is the knowledge, skills and behaviours needed to meet food needs and determine intake and is conceptualised as eleven components under four domains of planning and managing, selecting, preparing, and eating. Previous measures of food literacy vary in their adherence to the conceptualisation and ability to capture totality of eating. This study aimed to determine items for inclusion and exclusion in a food literacy item pool and capture the general public's interpretation of everyday food literacy practices. DESIGN: Beginning with an item pool from previous studies, cognitive interviews were conducted using think-aloud and verbal probing methods. Data were first analysed for applicability, clarity, ambiguity and logic, then for emergent themes to ensure items captured the totality of the participant's eating. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Australian residents over 18 years of age recruited via Facebook residential groups (n 20). RESULTS: Of the original 116 items, 11 items had limited applicability; 13 items had unclear references; 32 items had lexical problems and 11 items had logical problems. In total, 29 items were deleted, 31 retained and 56 revised. Thematic analysis revealed participants limited their responses to consider only conventional practices such as grocery shopping, cooking and planned meals rather than the totality of their eating. An additional eighty-four items were developed to address eating out, incidental eating occasions and inconsistencies between participants assumed correct knowledge and that of public health guidelines. This resulted in a refined 171-item pool. CONCLUSIONS: This study progresses the development towards a comprehensive, validated food literacy questionnaire

Measuring food literacy: Progressing the development of an international food literacy survey using a content validity study

Background: The term “food literacy” is increasingly used to describe the knowledge, skills and behaviours needed to meet food needs. The aim of this research was to determine content validity for an International Food Literacy Survey. Methods: The literature was searched for existing items to form an item pool to measure the eleven components of food literacy. Expert consensus was investigated through two related online surveys. Round 1 participants were researchers who had been involved in the development of a food literacy measure (n = 18). Round 2 participants were authors of papers who had used the term (n = 85). Level of agreement was determined quantitatively using the Content Validity Index and compared to open ended qualitative comments. Results: Consensus was achieved on 119 items. Components varied in the ease with which existing validated items could be found and the number of items achieving consensus. Items related to food prepared within the home were more likely to achieve consensus. Additional issues included limited shared understanding of the scope of the term, the validity of items varying according to context and a limited health focus. Conclusions: This study provides a valuable basis upon which to progress the development of a measure.</p

Are We Closer to International Consensus on the Term ‘Food Literacy’?: A Systematic Scoping Review of Its Use in the Academic Literature (1998–2019)

(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 (n = 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 (n = 82, 15%), review articles were twice as prevalent compared to the total number of articles (n = 10, 12% vs. n = 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

Exploring nutrition knowledge levels of Australian university students: Findings from the AUS-R NKQ validation study

University is a time when students establish independence and are primarily responsible for their own food intake (1,2). However, unhealthy dietary behaviours such as an increase in nutrient-poor, energy-dense foods are often adopted during this time (3-5). Nutrition knowledge (NK) has been proposed to improve dietary behaviours of students, with higher levels of NK associated with more frequent purchasing of healthy foods, increased consumption of fruits and vegetables and more nutritious food choices (6-7). Understanding university students nutrition knowledge is critical in determining areas that nutrition programmes should focus on to improve their dietary behaviours (1,8-9). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to explore NK levels of Australian university students using the AUS-R NKQ (8)

The development and validation of a revised general nutrition knowledge questionnaire for an Australian audience

A review of the literature has indicated a lack of current, validated nutrition knowledge questionnaires for Australia since 2008. Given the changes to public health nutrition guidelines and the nutrition landscape, a validated questionnaire to assess outcomes and effectiveness of nutrition education strategies and programs is needed

Validity of a nutrition knowledge questionnaire (AUS-R NKQ) in Australian university students

Background: Nutrition programs often focus on the development of nutrition knowledge to influence dietary habits and behaviours. Determining the effectiveness of nutrition interventions requires a measurement of change in knowledge, most commonly assessed by a questionnaire. Despite changes in national nutrition recommendations, public health nutrition guidelines and food availability, a review of the literature has indicated a lack of current, validated nutrition knowledge questionnaires for Australia since 2008. This study aimed to measure construct validity and test-retest reliability of a nutrition knowledge questionnaire in an Australian university sample.Methods: Ninety-three undergraduate nutrition and engineering students at Queensland University of Technology completed an online nutrition knowledge questionnaire to measure construct validity. Nineteen students were contacted a week later for test-retest reliability.Results: Nutrition students scored consistently higher in each section and for the questionnaire overall (M=100.53, SD=7.82) compared to engineering students (M=80.13, SD=10.17), t(91)=10.86, p=Conclusions: The AUS-R NKQ is valid and would be an appropriate questionnaire for assessing the effectiveness of public health nutrition interventions within a university setting