Food environment research in Canada: a rapid review of methodologies and measures deployed between 2010 and 2021.

Numerous research methodologies have been used to examine food environments. Existing reviews synthesizing food environment measures have examined a limited number of domains or settings and none have specifically targeted Canada. This rapid review aimed to 1) map research methodologies and measures that have been used to assess food environments; 2) examine what food environment dimensions and equity related-factors have been assessed; and 3) identify research gaps and priorities to guide future research. A systematic search of primary articles evaluating the Canadian food environment in a real-world setting was conducted. Publications in English or French published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1 2010 and June 17 2021 and indexed in Web of Science, CAB Abstracts and Ovid MEDLINE were considered. The search strategy adapted an internationally-adopted food environment monitoring framework covering 7 domains (Food Marketing; Labelling; Prices; Provision; Composition; Retail; and Trade and Investment). The final sample included 220 articles. Overall, Trade and Investment (1%, n = 2), Labelling (7%, n = 15) and, to a lesser extent, Prices (14%, n = 30) were the least studied domains in Canada. Among Provision articles, healthcare (2%, n = 1) settings were underrepresented compared to school (67%, n = 28) and recreation and sport (24%, n = 10) settings, as was the food service industry (14%, n = 6) compared to grocery stores (86%, n = 36) in the Composition domain. The study identified a vast selection of measures employed in Canada overall and within single domains. Equity-related factors were only examined in half of articles (n = 108), mostly related to Retail (n = 81). A number of gaps remain that prevent a holistic and systems-level analysis of food environments in Canada. As Canada continues to implement policies to improve the quality of food environments in order to improve dietary patterns, targeted research to address identified gaps and harmonize methods across studies will help evaluate policy impact over time.

A Systematic Review and Recommendations Around Frameworks for Evaluating Scientific Validity in Nutritional Genomics.

Background: There is a significant lack of consistency used to determine the scientific validity of nutrigenetic research. The aims of this study were to examine existing frameworks used for determining scientific validity in nutrition and/or genetics and to determine which framework would be most appropriate to evaluate scientific validity in nutrigenetics in the future. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021261948) was conducted up until July 2021 using Medline, Embase, and Web of Science, with articles screened in duplicate. Gray literature searches were also conducted (June-July 2021), and reference lists of two relevant review articles were screened. Included articles provided the complete methods for a framework that has been used to evaluate scientific validity in nutrition and/or genetics. Articles were excluded if they provided a framework for evaluating health services/systems more broadly. Citing articles of the included articles were then screened in Google Scholar to determine if the framework had been used in nutrition or genetics, or both; frameworks that had not were excluded. Summary tables were piloted in duplicate and revised accordingly prior to synthesizing all included articles. Frameworks were critically appraised for their applicability to nutrigenetic scientific validity assessment using a predetermined categorization matrix, which included key factors deemed important by an expert panel for assessing scientific validity in nutrigenetics. Results: Upon screening 3,931 articles, a total of 49 articles representing 41 total frameworks, were included in the final analysis (19 used in genetics, 9 used in nutrition, and 13 used in both). Factors deemed important for evaluating nutrigenetic evidence related to study design and quality, generalizability, directness, consistency, precision, confounding, effect size, biological plausibility, publication/funding bias, allele and nutrient dose-response, and summary levels of evidence. Frameworks varied in the components of their scientific validity assessment, with most assessing study quality. Consideration of biological plausibility was more common in frameworks used in genetics. Dose-response effects were rarely considered. Two included frameworks incorporated all but one predetermined key factor important for nutrigenetic scientific validity assessment. Discussion/Conclusions: A single existing framework was highlighted as optimal for the rigorous evaluation of scientific validity in nutritional genomics, and minor modifications are proposed to strengthen it further. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=261948, PROSPERO [CRD42021261948].