Objective: This systematic review aimed to summarise the level of quality and accuracy of nutrition-related information on websites and social media and determine if quality and accuracy varied between websites and social media or publishers of information. Design: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224277). CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and Academic Search Complete were systematically searched on 15 January 2021 to identify content analysis studies, published in English after 1989, that evaluated the quality and/or accuracy of nutrition-related information published on websites or social media. A coding framework was used to classify studies’ findings about information quality and/or accuracy as poor, good, moderate, or varied. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Setting: N/A Participants: N/A Results: From 10,482 articles retrieved, 64 were included. Most studies evaluated information from websites (n=53, 82.8%). Similar numbers of studies assessed quality (n=41, 64.1%) and accuracy (n=47, 73.4%). Almost half of the studies reported that quality (n=20, 48.8%) or accuracy (n = 23, 48.9%) was low. Quality and accuracy of information was similar on social media and websites, however, varied between information publishers. High risk of bias in sample selection and quality or accuracy evaluations was a common limitation. Conclusion: Online nutrition-related information is often inaccurate and of low-quality. Consumers seeking information online are at risk of being misinformed. More action is needed to improve the public’s eHealth and media literacy and the reliability of online nutrition-related information.

Background Health-related misinformation can be propagated via social media and is a threat to public health. Several quality assessment tools and principles to evaluate health-related information in the public domain exist; however, these were not designed specifically for social media. Objective This study aims to develop Principles for Health-related Information on Social Media (PRHISM), which can be used to evaluate the quality of health-related social media content. Methods A modified Delphi approach was used to obtain expert consensus on the principles and functions of PRHISM. Health and social media experts were recruited via Twitter, email, and snowballing. A total of 3 surveys were administered between February 2021 and May 2021. The first survey was informed by a literature review and included open-ended questions and items from existing quality assessment tools. Subsequent surveys were informed by the results of the proceeding survey. Consensus was deemed if ≥80% agreement was reached, and items with consensus were considered relevant to include in PRHISM. After the third survey, principles were finalized, and an instruction manual and scoring tool for PRHISM were developed and circulated to expert participants for final feedback. Results A total of 34 experts consented to participate, of whom 18 (53%) responded to all 3 Delphi surveys. In total, 13 principles were considered relevant and were included in PRHISM. When the instructions and PRHISM scoring tool were circulated, no objections to the wording of the final principles were received. Conclusions A total of 13 quality principles were included in the PRHISM tool, along with a scoring system and implementation tool. The principles promote accessibility, transparency, provision of authoritative and evidence-based information and support for consumers’ relationships with health care providers. PRHISM can be used to evaluate the quality of health-related information provided on social media. These principles may also be useful to content creators for developing high-quality health-related social media content and assist consumers in discerning high- and low-quality information.

Consumption of healthy and sustainable diets (HSD) provides opportunities to co-benefit human health and adapt to and mitigate climate change. Despite robust evidence and policy recommendations from authoritative groups to reorientate the food system to favour consumption of HSD there has been limited policy action. This study investigated potential barriers and enablers for successful HSD policies in Australia. A review of HSD policy recommendations and of current Australian policies was undertaken. Results from the reviews informed a Delphi study, which investigated Australian stakeholder opinions on the effectiveness of HSD policy recommendations and barriers and enablers to creating successful HSD policies. Nine participants completed two Delphi iterations. A lack of consensus was reached on the effectiveness of policy recommendations. Consensus was reached on the effect of five barriers and three enablers. Key barriers were: the complex nature of the food system, competing interests of stakeholders, pressure from industry, government silos and lack of political will. Key enablers were: building relationships with key stakeholders across multiple disciplines and sectors, understanding the policy making process and developing a clear and coherent solution. Most of the identified barriers fall under the broad category of lack of political will. Interrelationships between barriers are likely worsening the impact of inadequate political will. There is a need to act on the identified barriers and enablers to secure the HSD policies that are required. Interactions between barriers may present an opportunity to address them simultaneously.

Social media is a popular source of nutrition information and can influence food choice. Instagram is widely used in Australia, and nutrition is frequently discussed on Instagram. However, little is known about the content of nutrition information published on Instagram. The aim of this study was to examine the content of nutrition-related posts from popular Australian Instagram accounts. Australian Instagram accounts with ≥100,000 followers, that primarily posted about nutrition, were identified. All posts from included accounts, from September 2020 to September 2021, were extracted and posts about nutrition were included. Post captions were analysed using Leximancer, a content analysis software, to identify concepts and themes. Text from each theme was read to develop a description and select illustrative quotes. The final sample included 10,964 posts from 61 accounts. Five themes were identified: (1) recipes; (2) food and nutrition practices; (3) body goals; (4) food literacy and (5) cooking at home. Recipes and practical information about nutrition and food preparation are popular on Instagram. Content about weight loss and physique-related goals is also popular and nutrition-related Instagram posts frequently include marketing of supplements, food and online programs. The popularity of nutrition-related content indicates that Instagram may be a useful health-promotion setting.

Background: The design of parks is critical to ensure they are appealing, meet the needs of the community and optimise opportunities for physical activity, relaxation, exposure to nature and social interaction. There is currently a lack of understanding on how research evidence is informing park design and how to reduce the many challenges associated with research-practice-policy translation. Understanding how organisations use evidence for decisionmaking regarding park design is critical for reducing the research-practice-policy gap and ensuring evidence based strategies inform park design to support healthy active living. This study explored stakeholder perceptions regarding factors that influence the use of research evidence to inform park planning and design, and potential strategies to enhance effective translation of research evidence for optimal park design into policy and practice. Methods: One-on-one in-depth interviews were conducted with 23 stakeholders within the park design, planning and management sector. Participants shared experiences regarding: influences on park development and design; current park development policies; ways to facilitate use of evidence; and priorities for future research. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and content analysis performed using NVivo 12. Results: Research evidence is used and considered important for park planning; however, several barriers were highlighted: time and cost constraints; difficulties accessing research; and limited research relevant to specific needs. Developing partnerships between researchers and park developers and providing evidence in a more accessible format such as short summaries/reports, infographics, presentations, research updates and dedicated research databases emerged as key enablers. The main research gaps identified included research into park features to encourage visitation and cost-benefit analyses studies. Conclusions: This research is a first step to better understand strategies to promote more effective uptake and use of evidence to inform park planning. Researchers must develop multi-sectoral collaborations and generate policyrelevant research in a readily accessible, timely and user-friendly format to ensure evidence is used to enhance park design and ultimately public health.