Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb 2;12(2):e0171077.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171077. eCollection 2017.

The DONE framework: Creation, evaluation, and updating of an interdisciplinary, dynamic framework 2.0 of determinants of nutrition and eating

Affiliations

The DONE framework: Creation, evaluation, and updating of an interdisciplinary, dynamic framework 2.0 of determinants of nutrition and eating

F Marijn Stok et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

The question of which factors drive human eating and nutrition is a key issue in many branches of science. We describe the creation, evaluation, and updating of an interdisciplinary, interactive, and evolving "framework 2.0" of Determinants Of Nutrition and Eating (DONE). The DONE framework was created by an interdisciplinary workgroup in a multiphase, multimethod process. Modifiability, relationship strength, and population-level effect of the determinants were rated to identify areas of priority for research and interventions. External experts positively evaluated the usefulness, comprehensiveness, and quality of the DONE framework. An approach to continue updating the framework with the help of experts was piloted. The DONE framework can be freely accessed (http://uni-konstanz.de/DONE) and used in a highly flexible manner: determinants can be sorted, filtered and visualized for both very specific research questions as well as more general queries. The dynamic nature of the framework allows it to evolve as experts can continually add new determinants and ratings. We anticipate this framework will be useful for research prioritization and intervention development.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Graphical representation of the methodological approach to creating, evaluating, and updating the DONE framework.
The numbers of workgroup members provided involved in each phase are minimum numbers. Actual numbers are likely to be higher since, in some cases, several workgroup members submitted one joint response.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Taxonomy of outcomes of the DONE framework.
Note: figure prepared using MindMeister.com.
Fig 3
Fig 3. DONE framework categorization structure.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Average overall priority for research across determinants of the 51 leaf-categories in the DONE framework across age groups (children / adults) and across rater type (workgroup member / external expert).
Fig 5
Fig 5. Average scores across determinants of the 51 leaf-categories in the DONE framework on modifiability, relationship strength, and population-level effect across age groups and across rater type.
Sub-categories in the top-right corner that have larger circles can be considered as potentially important / influential leaf-categories as these sub-categories score highly on all three rating dimensions.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Storyboard detailing the interactive possibilities of the DONE framework using a concrete example of a potential research question.

References

    1. Wansink B, Sobal J. Mindless eating the 200 daily food decisions we overlook. Environ Behav. 2007;39:106–123.
    1. Hofmann W, Vohs KD, Baumeister RF. What people desire, feel conflicted about, and try to resist in everyday life. Psychol Sci. 2012;23:582–588. 10.1177/0956797612437426 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baranowski T, Cullen KW, Nicklas T, Thompson D, Baranowski J. Are current health behavioral change models helpful in guiding prevention of weight gain efforts? Obes Res. 2003;11:23S–43S. 10.1038/oby.2003.222 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Köster EP. Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Qual Prefer. 2009:20;70–82.
    1. Symmank C, Mai R, Hoffmann S, Stok FM, Renner B, Lien N, et al. Predictors of food decision making: A systematic interdisciplinary mapping (SIM) review. Appetite, in press. - PubMed