Risk and protective factors for the intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment in South Korea: a secondary analysis of data from the Family with Children's Life Experience Survey.

Cancer nutrition education is an evidence-based strategy that supports preventive behaviors and survivorship outcomes across the cancer continuum. These outcomes include risk reduction, improved treatment tolerance, reduced recurrence, and enhanced long-term quality of life. This is particularly relevant for women diagnosed with or at risk for reproductive cancers, including breast, ovarian, cervical, endometrial, uterine, vulvar, and vaginal cancers. Dietary patterns influence metabolic regulation, inflammation, immune response, and hormonal pathways implicated in cancer incidence and progression. Plant-based diets before diagnosis are associated with lower ovarian cancer mortality, while high intake of ultra-processed foods is linked to increased endometrial cancer risk. Dietary patterns rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fiber, antioxidants, and phytonutrients show protective associations across outcomes. Similarly, dietary models often studied under the Mediterranean framework, emphasizing whole foods, fish, olive oil, moderate dairy, and limited red meat, are also associated with improved survivorship and treatment response. However, translating these dietary patterns into daily practice depends in part on nutrition literacy. Nutrition literacy plays a central role in translating dietary recommendations into sustained behavior. Defined as the capacity to access, interpret, evaluate, and apply nutrition information within social and cultural context, nutrition literacy predicts adherence to recommended dietary patterns and the ability to navigate complex or conflicting health messaging. In primary care and community-based settings, nutrition education programs often rely on literacy-dependent materials, standardized dietary guidelines, and individualized counseling models intended to facilitate behavior change. Despite compelling evidence supporting the efficacy of cancer nutrition interventions, benefits are not equitably realized among African American/Black (AA/B) women. AA/B women experience disproportionate burdens across multiple cancer outcomes, yet nutrition education efforts frequently fail to translate into sustained, feasible dietary changes within their lived contexts. This persistent gap suggests that inequities stem less from the effectiveness of interventions and more from how nutrition education is designed, delivered, and operationalized within institutional and policy environments. Primary care systems and community-based programs typically rely on standardized dietary frameworks developed within Eurocentric nutrition science traditions that assume stable food access, flexible time availability, cultural alignment with recommended foods, trust in healthcare systems, and minimal caregiving strain. However, many AA/B women face structural barriers, including food insecurity, financial strain, caregiving labor demands, and distrust shaped by historical harm. As a result, standard nutrition advice may be clinically accurate but not feasible. When dietary adherence does not occur, responsibility is frequently individualized rather than attributed to the structural conditions that constrain implementation. Qualitative studies challenge models that attribute cancer nutrition inequities to patient nonadherence or knowledge deficits. Existing research shows that AA/B women are frequently expected to adjust nutrition guidance that reflects dominant dietary norms while managing caregiving demands, treatment-related fatigue, food access constraints, and institutional mistrust. Rather than emphasizing individual failure, this body of work highlights how studies shift responsibility toward program design, institutional norms, and broader conditions that influence what is feasible in daily life. Authors frequently call for culturally grounded, co-designed, and structurally responsive approaches. However, despite growing recognition of structural constraints, there has been limited synthesis of how the literature frames and assigns responsibility for inequitable outcomes. Existing research often centers on individual behavior change, with less attention to how responsibility is attributed to structural and policy-level conditions that shape what is feasible in daily life.