ArticlePublic health nutrition2020
Chemicals, cans and factories: how grade school children think about processed foods.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2020. 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.
- How Do Consumers Understand Food Processing? A Study on the Brazilian Population.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Exposure to obesogenic endocrine disrupting chemicals and obesity among youth of Latino or Hispanic origin in the United States and Latin America: A lifecourse perspective.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2021Review
- Addressing Challenges with the Categorization of Foods Processed at Home: A Pilot Methodology to Inform Consumer-Facing Guidance.Nutrients · 2020Article
- Article
- Perceptions of Processed Foods Among Low-Income and Immigrant Parents.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine how children interpret terms related to food processing; whether their categorisation of foods according to processing level is consistent with those used in research; and whether they associate the degree of processing with healthfulness.
designQualitative data were collected from ten focus groups. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted.
settingFour elementary and afterschool programmes in a large, urban school district in the USA that served predominantly low-income, racial/ethnic minority students.
participantsChildren, 9-12 years old, in the fourth-sixth grades (n 53).
resultsThe sample was 40 % male, 47 % Hispanic with a mean age of 10·4 ± 1·1 years. Children's understanding of unprocessed foods was well aligned with research classifications, while concordance of highly processed foods with research categorisations varied. Five primary themes regarding the way children categorised foods according to their processing level emerged: type and amount of added ingredients; preparation method; packaging and storage; change in physical state or sensory experience; and growing method. Most children associated processing level with healthfulness, describing unprocessed foods as healthier. The most common reason provided for the unhealthfulness of processed foods was added ingredients, including 'chemicals' and 'sugar'.
conclusionsThe current study demonstrated that children have a working knowledge of processing that could be leveraged to encourage healthier eating patterns; however, their understanding is not always consistent with the classification systems used in research. The vocabulary used by researchers and consumers to talk about processing must be reconciled to translate findings into actionable messages.
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.