ArticleAmerican journal of public health2015
Weighing in: the taste-engineering frame in obesity expert discourse.
Article in American journal of public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 30+ years of media analysis of relevance to chronic disease: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Article
- Building the case for housing policy: Understanding public beliefs about housing affordability as a key social determinant of health.SSM - population health · 2018Article
- Dietary Assimilation among Mexican Children in Immigrant Households: Code-switching and Healthy Eating across Social Institutions.Journal of health and social behavior · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe sought expert opinion on the problems with 2 dominant obesity-prevention discourse frames-personal responsibility and the environment-and examined alternative frames for understanding and addressing obesity.
methodsWe conducted 60-minute, semistructured interviews with 15 US-based obesity experts. We manually coded and entered interview transcripts into software, generating themes and subthematic areas that captured the debate's essence.
resultsAlthough the environmental frame is the dominant model used in communications with the public and policymakers, several experts found that communicating key messages within this frame was difficult because of the enormity of the obesity problem. A subframe of the environmental frame--the taste-engineering frame--identifies food industry strategies to influence the overconsumption of certain foods and beverages. This emerging frame deconstructs the environmental frame so that causal attributes and responsible agents are more easily identifiable and proposed policies and public health interventions more salient.
conclusionsExpert interviews are an invaluable resource for understanding how experts use frames in discussing their work and in conversations with the public and policymakers. Future empirical studies testing the effectiveness of the taste-engineering frame on public opinion and support for structural-level health policies are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.