↓ Skip to main content

Food, health, and complexity: towards a conceptual understanding to guide collaborative public health action

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
57 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Food, health, and complexity: towards a conceptual understanding to guide collaborative public health action
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3142-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shannon E. Majowicz, Samantha B. Meyer, Sharon I. Kirkpatrick, Julianne L. Graham, Arshi Shaikh, Susan J. Elliott, Leia M. Minaker, Steffanie Scott, Brian Laird

Abstract

What we eat simultaneously impacts our exposure to pathogens, allergens, and contaminants, our nutritional status and body composition, our risks for and the progression of chronic diseases, and other outcomes. Furthermore, what we eat is influenced by a complex web of drivers, including culture, politics, economics, and our built and natural environments. To date, public health initiatives aimed at improving food-related population health outcomes have primarily been developed within 'practice silos', and the potential for complex interactions among such initiatives is not well understood. Therefore, our objective was to develop a conceptual model depicting how infectious foodborne illness, food insecurity, dietary contaminants, obesity, and food allergy can be linked via shared drivers, to illustrate potential complex interactions and support future collaboration across public health practice silos. We developed the conceptual model by first conducting a systematic literature search to identify review articles containing schematics that depicted relationships between drivers and the issues of interest. Next, we synthesized drivers into a common model using a modified thematic synthesis approach that combined an inductive thematic analysis and mapping to synthesize findings. The literature search yielded 83 relevant references containing 101 schematics. The conceptual model contained 49 shared drivers and 227 interconnections. Each of the five issues was connected to all others. Obesity and food insecurity shared the most drivers (n = 28). Obesity shared several drivers with food allergy (n = 11), infectious foodborne illness (n = 7), and dietary contamination (n = 6). Food insecurity shared several drivers with infectious foodborne illness (n = 9) and dietary contamination (n = 9). Infectious foodborne illness shared drivers with dietary contamination (n = 8). Fewer drivers were shared between food allergy and: food insecurity (n = 4); infectious foodborne illness (n = 2); and dietary contamination (n = 1). Our model explicates potential interrelationships between five population health issues for which public health interventions have historically been siloed, suggesting that interventions targeted towards these issues have the potential to interact and produce unexpected consequences. Public health practitioners working in infectious foodborne illness, food insecurity, dietary contaminants, obesity, and food allergy should actively consider how their seemingly targeted public health actions may produce unintended positive or negative population health impacts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 181 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 16%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 33 18%
Unknown 40 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 32 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 17%
Social Sciences 29 16%
Environmental Science 10 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 45 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,124,473
of 25,808,886 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,252
of 17,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,520
of 355,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#27
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,808,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.