Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30642027›Full record

ArticleNutrients2019

The Psychology of Nutrition with Advancing Age: Focus on Food Neophobia.

Emmy van den Heuvel, Annie Newbury, Katherine M Appleton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Emmy van den HeuvelResearch Centre for Behaviour Change, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK. mvandenheuvel@bournemouth.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9304-5491
Annie NewburyResearch Centre for Behaviour Change, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK. annienewbury@yahoo.co.uk.
Katherine M AppletonResearch Centre for Behaviour Change, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK. k.appleton@bournemouth.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7045-3564

Funding

Bournemouth University N/ABritish Egg Industry Council N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many factors impact on eating behaviour and nutritional status in older adults. Strategies can be suggested to combat the impact of these factors, including the development of novel food products, but food neophobia ("the reluctance to eat and/or avoidance of novel foods") may be a barrier to the acceptance of these foods/products. This work aimed to investigate associations between food neophobia, physical disadvantage, and demographic characteristics in adults over 55 years old. Cross-sectional data from 377 older adults was analysed for relationships between food neophobia scores and physical disadvantage (denture wearing, help with food shopping and/or preparing, and risk of sarcopenia), controlling for age group, gender, living status, education, and employment level. Initial analyses demonstrated higher food neophobia scores in association with denture wearing (

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorNutritional StatusAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCross-Sectional StudiesDenturesFemaleFood PreferencesHumansMaleMalnutritionMiddle AgedSarcopeniaSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and Questionnairesfood neophobiaolder adultsphysical disadvantage

Identifiers

PMID30642027
PMCPMC6356997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.