Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32178291›Full record

ArticleNutrients2020

Using the Internet: Nutrition Information-Seeking Behaviours of Lay People Enrolled in a Massive Online Nutrition Course.

Melissa Adamski, Helen Truby, Karen M Klassen, Stephanie Cowan, Simone Gibson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Content accuracy and readability of dietary advice available on webpages: A systematic review of the evidence.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Exploring stakeholder experiences of dietetic service and care delivery: A systematic qualitative review.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

5 authors.

Melissa AdamskiThe Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Level 1 264 Ferntree Gully Road, Notting Hill, VIC 3168, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0928-986X
Helen TrubyThe Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Level 1 264 Ferntree Gully Road, Notting Hill, VIC 3168, Australia.
Karen M KlassenThe Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Level 1 264 Ferntree Gully Road, Notting Hill, VIC 3168, Australia.
Stephanie CowanThe Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Level 1 264 Ferntree Gully Road, Notting Hill, VIC 3168, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6731-4221
Simone GibsonThe Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Level 1 264 Ferntree Gully Road, Notting Hill, VIC 3168, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0008-9020

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People's accessibility to nutrition information is now near universal due to internet access, and the information available varies in its scientific integrity and provider expertise. Understanding the information-seeking behaviours of the public is paramount for providing sound nutrition advice. This research aims to identify who learners in a nutrition-focused Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) turn to for nutrition information, and how they discuss the information they find. A multi-methods approach explored the information-seeking and sharing behaviours of MOOC learners. Summative content analysis, and an exploratory, inductive, qualitative approach analysed learners' posts in MOOC discussion forums. From 476 posts, the majority (58.6%) of nutrition information sources learners reported were from websites. Providers of nutrition information were most commonly (34%) tertiary educated individuals lacking identifiable nutrition qualifications; 19% had no identifiable author information, and only 5% were from nutrition professionals. Qualitative themes identified that learners used nutrition information to learn, teach and share nutrition information. Consistent with connectivist learning theory, learners contributed their own sources of nutrition information to discussions, using their own knowledge networks to teach and share information. Nutrition professionals need to understand the principles of connectivist learning behaviours in order to effectively engage the public.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducation, DistanceHealth EducationInformation Seeking BehaviorNutritional StatusAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedinformation-seeking behaviournutrition educationnutrition misinformationonline learningsocial media

Identifiers

PMID32178291
PMCPMC7146568

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.