PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Higher education students are an important target group for public health nutrition interventions. When designing tailored and contextually relevant interventions, participatory and co-creation approaches are increasingly recognized as promising but their use and effectiveness has not been assessed in this type of population. We systematically reviewed interventions aiming to improve dietary quality and/or food security in higher education settings with the aims 1) to identify and describe their participatory and co-creation approaches and 2) to compare the effectiveness of interventions using or not using participatory and co-creation approaches.
METHODS: Our search in PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, EMBASE was performed in January 2023 and yielded 3658 unique records, out of which 42 articles (66 interventions) were included. Effectiveness of interventions was assessed at the individual level (longitudinal evaluations) or at the group level (repeated cross-sectional evaluations). A five-level classification was used to describe a continuum of engagement from students and other partners in the intervention design and implementation: no participation (level one), consultation, co-production, co-design and co-creation (levels two to five). To synthetize effectiveness, comparisons were made between studies without participation (level one) or with participation (levels two-five).
RESULTS: Ten (24%) out of 42 studies used a participatory and co-creation approach (levels two-five). Studies using a participatory and co-creation approach reported a positive finding on individual-level outcome (i.e. overall diet quality or food group intake or food security) in 5/13 (38%) intervention arms (vs 13/31 or 42% for those without participation). Studies using a participatory and co-creation approach reported a positive finding on group-level outcomes (i.e. food choices in campus food outlets) in 4/7 (57%) (vs 8/23 or 35% in those without participation).
CONCLUSIONS: Participatory and co-creation approaches may improve the effectiveness of nutrition interventions in higher education settings but the level of evidence remains very limited. More research is warranted to identify best co-creation practices when designing, implementing and evaluating nutritional interventions in the higher education setting.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO registration number CRD42023393004.
METHODS: Our search in PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, EMBASE was performed in January 2023 and yielded 3658 unique records, out of which 42 articles (66 interventions) were included. Effectiveness of interventions was assessed at the individual level (longitudinal evaluations) or at the group level (repeated cross-sectional evaluations). A five-level classification was used to describe a continuum of engagement from students and other partners in the intervention design and implementation: no participation (level one), consultation, co-production, co-design and co-creation (levels two to five). To synthetize effectiveness, comparisons were made between studies without participation (level one) or with participation (levels two-five).
RESULTS: Ten (24%) out of 42 studies used a participatory and co-creation approach (levels two-five). Studies using a participatory and co-creation approach reported a positive finding on individual-level outcome (i.e. overall diet quality or food group intake or food security) in 5/13 (38%) intervention arms (vs 13/31 or 42% for those without participation). Studies using a participatory and co-creation approach reported a positive finding on group-level outcomes (i.e. food choices in campus food outlets) in 4/7 (57%) (vs 8/23 or 35% in those without participation).
CONCLUSIONS: Participatory and co-creation approaches may improve the effectiveness of nutrition interventions in higher education settings but the level of evidence remains very limited. More research is warranted to identify best co-creation practices when designing, implementing and evaluating nutritional interventions in the higher education setting.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO registration number CRD42023393004.
摘要：
背景：高等教育学生是公共卫生营养干预的重要目标群体。在设计量身定制和上下文相关的干预措施时，参与式和共同创造方法越来越被认为是有前途的，但它们的使用和有效性尚未在这类人群中得到评估。我们系统地审查了旨在改善高等教育环境中饮食质量和/或粮食安全的干预措施，目的是1）确定和描述其参与式和共同创造方法，以及2）比较使用或不使用参与式和共同创造方法的干预措施的有效性。
方法：我们在PubMed中的搜索，谷歌学者，WebofScience,EMBASE于2023年1月进行，产生了3658条独特记录，其中包括42篇文章(66项干预措施)。在个人水平（纵向评估）或在组水平（重复横断面评估）评估干预措施的有效性。使用五级分类来描述学生和其他合作伙伴在干预设计和实施中的连续参与：无参与（一级），协商,联合制作，共同设计和共同创造（2至5级）。为了综合有效性，在无参与(一级)或有参与(二级至五级)的研究之间进行比较.
结果：42项研究中有10项（24％）使用了参与式和共同创造方法（2-5级）。使用参与式和共同创造方法的研究报告了5/13（38％）干预组的个人水平结果（即总体饮食质量或食物组摄入量或粮食安全）的积极发现（与13/31或42％没有参与）。使用参与式和共同创造方法的研究报告了4/7（57％）（与没有参与的8/23或35％）的小组级结果（即校园食品商店的食物选择）的积极发现。
结论：参与式和共同创造方法可能会提高高等教育环境中营养干预的有效性，但证据水平仍然非常有限。在设计时，有必要进行更多的研究来确定最佳的共同创造实践，在高等教育环境中实施和评估营养干预措施。
背景：PROSPERO注册号CRD42023393004。
方法：我们在PubMed中的搜索，谷歌学者，WebofScience,EMBASE于2023年1月进行，产生了3658条独特记录，其中包括42篇文章(66项干预措施)。在个人水平（纵向评估）或在组水平（重复横断面评估）评估干预措施的有效性。使用五级分类来描述学生和其他合作伙伴在干预设计和实施中的连续参与：无参与（一级），协商,联合制作，共同设计和共同创造（2至5级）。为了综合有效性，在无参与(一级)或有参与(二级至五级)的研究之间进行比较.
结果：42项研究中有10项（24％）使用了参与式和共同创造方法（2-5级）。使用参与式和共同创造方法的研究报告了5/13（38％）干预组的个人水平结果（即总体饮食质量或食物组摄入量或粮食安全）的积极发现（与13/31或42％没有参与）。使用参与式和共同创造方法的研究报告了4/7（57％）（与没有参与的8/23或35％）的小组级结果（即校园食品商店的食物选择）的积极发现。
结论：参与式和共同创造方法可能会提高高等教育环境中营养干预的有效性，但证据水平仍然非常有限。在设计时，有必要进行更多的研究来确定最佳的共同创造实践，在高等教育环境中实施和评估营养干预措施。
背景：PROSPERO注册号CRD42023393004。
