Community gardens contribute to community wellbeing by influencing the nutritional and social environment. The aim of this research was to develop a model that communicates the many benefits of community garden participation as described in the academic literature, to a diverse audience of laypersons. This model is an example of effective knowledge translation because the information is able to be more than simply understood but also practically applied. From April to August 2015, a model depicting the many benefits of community garden participation was prepared based on a global, critical literature review. The wellbeing benefits from community garden participation have been grouped into factors influencing the nutritional health environment and factors influencing the social environment. The graphic chosen to form the basis of the model is a fractal tree of life. In October 2015, to test the models comprehension and to obtain stakeholder feedback this model was presented to a diverse group of community members, leaders and workers from the Tāmaki region of Auckland, New Zealand. The model we present here effectively and clearly translates knowledge obtained from the academic literature on the benefits to wellbeing from community garden participation into a tool that can be used, adapted and developed by community groups, government agencies and health promoters.

Background: Obesity is prevalent in health care workers, but it is unknown whether a lack of nutritional knowledge contributes to this. This study measured the nutrition knowledge of undergraduate nursing students to identify knowledge gaps that could be addressed through nutrition teaching in an updated undergraduate nursing curriculum. Method: Undergraduate nursing students ( N = 197) completed a nutrition knowledge survey with questions on demographics, body composition, nutrition labels, food packaging claims, and healthy food-purchasing choices. Results: Mean overall nutritional knowledge scores were low, but overall scores were higher for students who had received nutrition teaching (60.5% versus 52.5%; F [1, 187] = 7.2, p < 0.001). Improvements in nutrition knowledge were consistent across all ethnic groups, and no effects of age were observed. Conclusion: To sufficiently prepare nurses for their public health role in obesity prevention, more nutrition education is needed in undergraduate nursing education programs, with emphasis on ethnic-specific educational requirements. [ J Nurs Educ. 2015;54(9, Suppl.):S103–S106.]

Objective: To compare the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP) content, serving size and package size of children’s ready-to-eat breakfast cereals (RTEC) available in five different Western countries.Design: NIP label information was collected from RTEC available for purchase in major supermarket chains. Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–WhitneyUandχ²tests were applied to detect differences between countries on manufacturer-declared serving size, total energy (kJ), total protein, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, total sugar, Na and fibre content. The Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) was used to evaluate the number of products deemed to be ‘unhealthy’.Setting: Supermarkets in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA.Participants: Children’s breakfast cereals (n636), including those with and without promotional characters.Results: The majority of children’s RTEC contained substantial levels of total sugar and differences were apparent between countries. Median sugar content per serving was higher in US cereals than all other countries (10·0v. 7·7–9·1 g;P< 0·0001). Median fat and saturated fat content were lowest in Australia and New Zealand RTEC, while the Na content of RTEC was 60–120 % higher in the USA and Canada than in Australia and the UK (allP≤ 0·01).Conclusions: Across all countries, there was a high proportion of RTEC marketed for children that had an unhealthy nutrient profile. Strategies and policies are needed to improve the nutrient value of RTEC for children, so they provide a breakfast food that meets nutrition guidelines.

Ethical publishing practices are vital to tobacco control research practice, particularly research involving Indigenous (Indigenous peoples: For the purposes of this Special Communication, we use the term Indigenous people(s) to include self-identified individuals and communities who frequently have historical continuity with precolonial/presettler societies; are strongly linked to the land on which they or their societies reside; and often maintain their own distinct language(s), belief and social-political systems, economies and sciences. The authors humbly acknowledge, respect and value that Indigenous peoples are diverse and constitute many nations, cultures and language groups. Many Indigenous peoples also exist as governments in treaty relations with settler-colonial societies, and all Indigenous peoples have inherent rights under international law. The language and terminology used should reflect the local context(s) and could include, but are not limited to, terms such as Aboriginal, Bagumani, Cherokee, First Peoples, First Nations, Inuit, Iwaidja, Kungarakan, Lakota, Māori, Mѐtis, American Indian, Navajo, Wagadagam, Wiradjuri, Yurok, etc) people. These practices can minimise, correct and address biases that tend to privilege Euro-Western perspectives. Ethical publishing practices can minimise and address harms, such as appropriation and misuse of knowledges; strengthen mechanisms of accountability to Indigenous peoples and communities; ensure that tobacco control research is beneficial and meaningful to Indigenous peoples and communities; and support Indigenous agency, sovereignty and self-determination. To ensure ethical practice in tobacco control, the research methodology and methods must incorporate tangible mechanisms to include and engage those Indigenous peoples that the research concerns, affects and impacts.Tobacco Controlis currently missing an ethical research and evaluation publishing protocol to help uphold ethical practice. The supporters of this Special Communication call onTobacco Controlto adopt publication practice that explicitly upholds ethical research and evaluation practices, particularly in Indigenous contexts. We encourage researchers, editors, peer reviewers, funding bodies and those publishing inTobacco Controlto reflect on their conduct and decision-making when working, developing and undertaking research and evaluation of relevance to Indigenous peoples.Tobacco Controland other publishers, funding bodies, institutions and research teams have a fundamental role in ensuring that the right peoples are doing the right work in the right way. We call forTobacco Controlto recognise, value and support ethical principles, processes and practices that underpin high-quality, culturally safe and priority-driven research, evaluation and science that will move us to a future that is commercial tobacco and nicotine free.