Development, validation and item reduction of a food literacy questionnaire (IFLQ-19) with Australian adults.

BACKGROUND: Food literacy is theorised to improve diet quality, nutrition behaviours, social connectedness and food security. The definition and conceptualisation by Vidgen & Gallegos, consisting of 11 theoretical components within the four domains of planning and managing, selecting, preparing and eating, is currently the most highly cited framework. However, a valid and reliable questionnaire is needed to comprehensively measure this conceptualisation. Therefore, this study draws on existing item pools to develop a comprehensive food literacy questionnaire using item response theory. METHODS: Five hundred Australian adults were recruited in Study 1 to refine a food literacy item pool using principal component analysis (PCA) and item response theory (IRT) which involved detailed item analysis on targeting, responsiveness, validity and reliability. Another 500 participants were recruited in Study 2 to replicate item analysis on validity and reliability on the refined item pool, and 250 of these participants re-completed the food literacy questionnaire to determine its test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The PCA saw the 171-item pool reduced to 100-items across 19 statistical components of food literacy. After the thresholds of 26 items were combined, responses to the food literacy questionnaire had ordered thresholds (targeting), acceptable item locations (< -0.01 to + 1.53) and appropriateness of the measurement model (n = 92% expected responses) (responsiveness), met outfit mean-squares MSQ (0.48-1.42) (validity) and had high person, item separation (> 0.99) and test-retest (ICC 2,1 0.55-0.88) scores (reliability). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a 100-item food literacy questionnaire, the IFLQ-19 to comprehensively address the Vidgen & Gallegos theoretical domains and components with good targeting, responsiveness, reliability and validity in a diverse sample of Australian adults.

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.

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.

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.

Validation of a revised General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire for Australia.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate a nutrition knowledge questionnaire appropriate for use in Australia. DESIGN: Nutrition knowledge is essential in establishing and maintaining strategies that reduce the burden of disease and promote wellbeing. The General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire (GNKQ) was developed in the United Kingdom in 1999 and validated for Australia in 2008. Changes in national nutrition recommendations and food availability prompted the redevelopment and revalidation of the UK questionnaire in 2016. However, the Australian questionnaire had not been subsequently updated. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Content validity was determined using a sample of academic dietitians in Australia (n 8). Face validity was undertaken with retail employees (n 11) whose highest level of education was secondary school. Ninety-three undergraduate nutrition and engineering students at Queensland University of Technology completed the questionnaire for construct validity, and nineteen students were contacted a week later for test-retest reliability. RESULTS: In the 117-scored questionnaire, nutrition students scored consistently higher in each of the four sections and overall (87 %, M 102, IQR 95, 107) compared with engineering students (77 %, M 82, IQR 76, 87·25, P < 0·01). Internal reliability of the questionnaire was high (α = 0·92) as was test-retest reliability (rs = 0·96, ICC2,1 = 0·99). AUS-R NKQ determined significant differences between individuals with known higher levels of nutrition knowledge and obtained high validity, reliability and consistency within an Australian sample. CONCLUSIONS: AUS-R NKQ refined through this research is valid and would be an appropriate questionnaire for assessing the effectiveness of nutrition knowledge-based interventions for public health programmes, clinicians and researchers.

Enrolment of families with overweight children into a program aimed at reducing childhood obesity with and without a weight criterion: a natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: Difficulties engaging families with overweight children to enrol into programs aimed at reducing childhood obesity have been well documented. During the implementation of the Parenting, Eating and Activity for Child Health Program (PEACH™) over a large geographical area (Queensland (QLD), Australia), a natural experiment developed. This experiment provided an opportunity to observe if there was a difference in enrolment for families with overweight children with a weight criterion (referred to as the period with a Targeted Eligibility Criterion (TEC)) compared to when a weight criterion was removed (the period referred to as Universal Eligibility Criterion (UEC)). We also examined the eligibility criterion's relationship with attendance, parental concern about their child's weight, estimation of overweight and obesity from parent-reported data. METHODS: A secondary analysis of baseline data from 926 overweight/obese children from 817 families enrolled in PEACH™ QLD was performed. Analyses were adjusted to control for the presence of clustered data. Bivariate statistics were performed using Pearson chi-square test with the second-order Rao-Scott correction, and Mann-Whitney U-test for non-parametric continuous variables. Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) explored the association between weight status-based eligibility criteria and enrolment of overweight children. GEE were adjusted for sex, age and socioeconomic index and stratified for weight category. RESULTS: Compared to obese children, overweight children were almost twice as likely to be enrolled when the program did not have weight status-based eligibility criteria (during UEC period) (OR = 1.90 (CI 95% 1.35-2.68, p <  0.001)). Parents of overweight children enrolled during the UEC period were more likely to regard their child's weight as less of a concern than during the TEC period (UEC 67% vs. TEC 45%, p = 0.036). Children whose parent-reported data underestimated their weight category were more likely to be enrolled while the program did not have weight-related eligibility criteria OR = 2.27 (CI 1.38-3.70, p <  0.01). Program session attendance did not appear to be impacted by the changes in eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The omission of weight criteria for healthy lifestyle programs is a consideration for health professionals and decision-makers alike when encouraging the enrolment of children who are overweight into healthy lifestyle programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12617000315314 . Retrospectively registered 28 February 2017.

A Scoping Review of the Validity, Reliability and Conceptual Alignment of Food Literacy Measures for Adults.

The measurement of food literacy has recently gained momentum globally. The aim of this paper is to review the literature in order to describe and analyse the measurement of adult food literacy. The objectives are to i) identify tools that explicitly measure food literacy in adults; ii) summarise their psychometric properties; and iii) critique tool items against the four domains and 11 components of food literacy, as conceptualised by Vidgen and Gallegos. Using the PRISMA guidelines, a search of seven databases (PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, EBSCOhost, A+ Education, and ProQuest) was undertaken. 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Papers reported on either the development of a tool to explicitly measure food literacy or a part thereof (n = 5); food literacy strategy indicators (n = 1); tools developed to evaluate a food literacy intervention (n = 3); or tools to measure food literacy as a characteristic within a broader study (n = 3). Six tools captured all four domains. None measured all components. Items measuring the same component varied considerably. Most tools referenced a theoretical framework, were validated and reliable. This review will assist practitioners select and develop tools for the measurement of food literacy in their context.

CONSORT to community: translation of an RCT to a large-scale community intervention and learnings from evaluation of the upscaled program.

BACKGROUND: Translation encompasses the continuum from clinical efficacy to widespread adoption within the healthcare service and ultimately routine clinical practice. The Parenting, Eating and Activity for Child Health (PEACH™) program has previously demonstrated clinical effectiveness in the management of child obesity, and has been recently implemented as a large-scale community intervention in Queensland, Australia. This paper aims to describe the translation of the evaluation framework from a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to large-scale community intervention (PEACH™ QLD). Tensions between RCT paradigm and implementation research will be discussed along with lived evaluation challenges, responses to overcome these, and key learnings for future evaluation conducted at scale. METHODS: The translation of evaluation from PEACH™ RCT to the large-scale community intervention PEACH™ QLD is described. While the CONSORT Statement was used to report findings from two previous RCTs, the REAIM framework was more suitable for the evaluation of upscaled delivery of the PEACH™ program. Evaluation of PEACH™ QLD was undertaken during the project delivery period from 2013 to 2016. RESULTS: Experiential learnings from conducting the evaluation of PEACH™ QLD to the described evaluation framework are presented for the purposes of informing the future evaluation of upscaled programs. Evaluation changes in response to real-time changes in the delivery of the PEACH™ QLD Project were necessary at stages during the project term. Key evaluation challenges encountered included the collection of complete evaluation data from a diverse and geographically dispersed workforce and the systematic collection of process evaluation data in real time to support program changes during the project. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of large-scale community interventions in the real world is challenging and divergent from RCTs which are rigourously evaluated within a more tightly-controlled clinical research setting. Constructs explored in an RCT are inadequate in describing the enablers and barriers of upscaled community program implementation. Methods for data collection, analysis and reporting also require consideration. We present a number of experiential reflections and suggestions for the successful evaluation of future upscaled community programs which are scarcely reported in the literature. TRIALS REGISTRATION: PEACH™ QLD was retrospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 28 February 2017 (ACTRN12617000315314).

Who does nutrition prevention work in Queensland? An investigation of structural and political workforce reforms.

AIM: This study aimed (i) to determine the change in the number of government-funded nutrition positions following structural and political reforms and (ii) to describe the remaining workforce available to do nutrition prevention work, including student placements, in Queensland. METHODS: Positions funded by the Queensland government were counted using departmental human resource data and compared with data collected 4 years earlier. Positions not funded by the government were identified using formal professional networks and governance group lists. Both groups were sent an online survey that explored their position name, funding source, employer, qualifications, years of experience, work in prevention and ability to supervise students. RESULTS: There was a 90% reduction in the number of nutrition prevention positions funded by the government between 2009 (137 full time equivalents (FTE)) and 2013 (14 FTE). In 2013, 313 specialist (n = 92) and generalist (n = 221) practitioners were identified as potentially working in nutrition prevention throughout Queensland. A total of 30 permanent FTEs indicated over 75% of their work focused on prevention. This included the 14 FTE funded by the Queensland government and an additional 16 FTE from other sectors. Generalists did not consider themselves part of the nutrition workforce. CONCLUSIONS: Queensland experienced an extreme reduction in its nutrition prevention workforce as a result of political and structural reforms. This disinvestment by the Queensland government was not compensated for by other sectors, and has left marked deficits in public health nutrition capacity, including student placements.

Defining food literacy and its components.

Food literacy has emerged as a term to describe the everyday practicalities associated with healthy eating. The term is increasingly used in policy, practice, research and by the public; however, there is no shared understanding of its meaning. The purpose of this research was to develop a definition of food literacy which was informed by the identification of its components. This was considered from two perspectives: that of food experts which aimed to reflect the intention of existing policy and investment, and that of individuals, who could be considered experts in the everyday practicalities of food provisioning and consumption. Given that food literacy is likely to be highly contextual, this second study focused on disadvantaged young people living in an urban area who were responsible for feeding themselves. The Expert Study used a Delphi methodology (round one n=43). The Young People's Study used semi-structured, life-course interviews (n=37). Constructivist Grounded Theory was used to analyse results. This included constant comparison of data within and between studies. From this, eleven components of food literacy were identified which fell into the domains of: planning and management; selection; preparation; and eating. These were used to develop a definition for the term "food literacy".