6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Retail Food Sector and Indigenous Peoples in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Scoping Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Indigenous Peoples in high-income countries experience higher burdens of food insecurity, obesity, and diet-related health conditions compared to national averages. The objective of this systematic scoping review is to synthesize information from the published literature on the methods/approaches, findings, and scope for research and interventions on the retail food sector servicing Indigenous Peoples in high-income countries. A structured literature search in two major international databases yielded 139 relevant peer-reviewed articles from nine countries. Most research was conducted in Oceania and North America, and in rural and remote regions. Several convergent issues were identified across global regions including limited grocery store availability/access, heightened exposure to unhealthy food environments, inadequate market food supplies (i.e., high prices, limited availability, and poor quality), and common underlying structural factors including socio-economic inequality and colonialism. A list of actions that can modify the nature and structure of retailing systems to enhance the availability, accessibility, and quality of healthful foods is identified. While continuing to (re)align research with community priorities, international collaboration may foster enhanced opportunities to strengthen the evidence base for policy and practice and contribute to the amelioration of diet quality and health at the population level.

          Related collections

          Most cited references244

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

            Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

              The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                27 November 2020
                December 2020
                : 17
                : 23
                : 8818
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; Melanie.Lemire@ 123456CRCHUdeQuebec.uLaval.ca
                [2 ]Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Axe santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, Quebec, QC G1E 6W2, Canada
                [3 ]School of Public Health and Social Policy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada; MatthewLittle@ 123456uVic.ca
                [4 ]Department of English Language and Literature, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada; Tad.Lemieux@ 123456Carleton.ca
                [5 ]School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA; PJGriff@ 123456uW.edu (P.J.G.); Yota1@ 123456uW.edu (Y.O.)
                [6 ]Department of American Indian Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
                [7 ]Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, Faculty of Arts, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada; SWesche@ 123456uOttawa.ca
                [8 ]Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Center, EarthLab, University of Washington; Seattle, WA 98195, USA
                [9 ]Département de nutrition, Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada; Malek.Batal@ 123456uMontreal.ca
                [10 ]Centre de recherche en santé publique (CReSP), Montreal, Quebec, QC H3N 1X9, Canada
                [11 ]Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 9A7, Canada; Laurie.Chan@ 123456uOttawa.ca
                [12 ]Institut de biologie intégrative et des systèmes (IBIS), Université Laval, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4991-3439
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4351-7483
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3334-1349
                Article
                ijerph-17-08818
                10.3390/ijerph17238818
                7730644
                33261090
                76de4ef4-b1d0-43bf-a2a2-4f635dccc439
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 14 October 2020
                : 18 November 2020
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                indigenous peoples,food environment,food price,food supply,food and nutrition,consumer,affordability,food security,obesity,health equity

                Comments

                Comment on this article