Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32972376›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Consumer perception of food variety in the UK: an exploratory mixed-methods analysis.

Rochelle Embling, Aimee E Pink, Michelle D Lee, Menna Price, Laura L Wilkinson

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rochelle EmblingDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK. rochelle.embling@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9850-9603
Aimee E PinkDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Michelle D LeeDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Menna PriceDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Laura L WilkinsonDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Swansea University · GBNanyang Technological University · SG

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/P00069X/1, Studentship 197139
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background'Food variety' is a key term that is frequently used in dietary guidelines around the world. Consuming a variety of foods - be it within a meal, across meals, or as part of the whole diet - is one factor that has been shown to increase food intake. However, little is known about consumer understanding of variety, and this may be a potential barrier to the success of dietary guidelines in today's 'obesogenic' environment. This research sought to explore 1) consumer recognition of different forms of variety, and 2) consumer definitions of variety.

methodsIn an online study (N = 240), participants were asked to discuss a range of photographs depicting different forms of variety, and to directly define the term 'food variety'. They were unaware of the research aim.

resultsUsing a mixed methods approach, directed content analysis of these data showed that individuals referenced multiple forms of variety in the presence of food photographs. However, when asked to define variety, participants tended to only discuss variety in the context of the whole diet.

conclusionsThese findings emphasise a need to educate consumers about variety to encourage adherence to dietary guidelines and help consumers better manage their own food intake.

Indexed as

DietMealsConsumer BehaviorFood PreferencesHumansPerceptionUnited KingdomConsumer understandingDietDietary guidelinesFoodQualitativeVariety

Identifiers

PMID32972376
PMCPMC7517603
OpenAlexW3087687265

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.