Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31791293›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Understanding traditional and modern eating: the TEP10 framework.

Gudrun Sproesser, Matthew B Ruby, Naomi Arbit, Charity S Akotia, Marle Dos Santos Alvarenga, Rachana Bhangaokar, Isato Furumitsu, Xiaomeng Hu, Sumio Imada, Gülbanu Kaptan and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Determination of AGE-CML Level in Commercially Available Sports Bar in Italy.Recent advances in food, nutrition & agriculture · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

16 authors.

Gudrun SproesserDepartment of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany. gudrun.sproesser@uni-konstanz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4223-2614
Matthew B RubyDepartment of Psychology and Counselling, La Trobe University, Albury-Wodonga, Australia.
Naomi ArbitBetterUp, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Charity S AkotiaDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana.
Marle Dos Santos AlvarengaDepartment of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Rachana BhangaokarDepartment of Human Development & Family Studies, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, India.
Isato FurumitsuFaculty of Health Sciences, Hiroshima-Shudo University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Xiaomeng HuDepartment of Psychology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Sumio ImadaFaculty of Health Sciences, Hiroshima-Shudo University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Gülbanu KaptanCentre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Martha Kaufer-HorwitzObesity and Eating Disorders Clinic, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico.
Usha MenonDepartment of Anthropology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA.
Claude FischlerIIAC, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France.
Paul RozinDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Harald T SchuppDepartment of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Britta RennerDepartment of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.

Funding

Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany 01EL1420AGerman Research Foundation Grant SP 1610/2-1JSPS JP16KT0097
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across the world, there has been a movement from traditional to modern eating, including a movement of traditional eating patterns from their origin culture to new cultures, and the emergence of new foods and eating behaviors. This trend toward modern eating is of particular significance because traditional eating has been related to positive health outcomes and sustainability. Yet, there is no consensus on what constitutes traditional and modern eating. The present study provides a comprehensive compilation of the various facets that seem to make up traditional and modern eating. Specifically, 106 facets were mentioned in the previous literature and expert discussions, combining international and interdisciplinary perspectives. The present study provides a framework (the TEP10 framework) systematizing these 106 facets into two major dimensions, what and how people eat, and 12 subdimensions. Hence, focusing only on single facets of traditional and modern eating is an oversimplification of this complex phenomenon. Instead, the multidimensionality and interplay between different facets should be considered to gain a comprehensive understanding of the trends, consequences, and underlying factors of traditional and modern eating.

Indexed as

Social ChangeDietEatingFeeding BehaviorHumansConceptual frameworkDietary changeModern eatingTraditional eatingWestern diet

Identifiers

PMID31791293
PMCPMC6889524

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.