ArticlePublic health nutrition2016
Heterogeneity in barriers regarding the motivation, the opportunity and the ability to choose low-calorie snack foods and beverages: associations with real-life choices.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional Biscuits, a Healthy Addition to Your Coffee Break-Evaluating Consumer Acceptability and Willingness to Pay.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Context matters: Self-regulation of healthy eating at different eating occasions.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2022Observational
- Why Not Blow the Whistle on Health Care Insurance Fraud? Evidence from Jiangsu Province, China.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Article
- Food Consumption Determinants and Barriers for Healthy Eating at the Workplace-A University Setting.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEmploying Rothschild's Motivation-Opportunity-Ability framework, the present study examines the extent to which heterogeneity in barriers regarding the motivation, the perceived opportunity and the perceived ability to choose low-calorie over high-calorie snacks is associated with the proportion of low-calorie snack choices in real life. Furthermore, the study investigates which dominant barrier profiles can be discerned.
designData were obtained from a survey about participants' motivation, opportunity and ability to choose low-calorie over high-calorie snacks and an FFQ that measured habitual consumption of snack foods and beverages. Data were analysed using R packages lavaan and NbClust, and IBM SPSS Statistics.
settingA representative sample (n 1318) of the Dutch population based on gender (686 women), age and education level.
resultsFor both snack foods and beverages, motivation to choose low-calorie over high-calorie snacks was associated strongest with proportions of low-calorie choices. The perceived ability and perceived opportunity were also associated with proportions of low-calorie choices, albeit to a lesser extent. Furthermore, three dominant profiles of barriers were identified: the no-barrier profile, the lack-of-opportunity profile and the lack-of-motivation profile. These profiles differed significantly on proportions of low-calorie snack choices, daily meal consumption and sociodemographic characteristics.
conclusionsHeterogeneity in barriers regarding the motivation, the perceived opportunity and the perceived ability to choose low-calorie over high-calorie snacks is associated with the proportion of low-calorie snack choices in real life. By identifying and appreciating heterogeneity in barriers, the present study provides further incentives for the tailoring of intervention strategies.
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.