ArticlePublic health nutrition2021
A structured expert judgement elicitation approach: how can it inform sound intervention decision-making to support household food security?
Article in Public health nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Expert Elicitation and Systems Mapping to Support Social Innovation in the (Blue) Food System: The Case of the UK's Plymouth Fish Finger.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Article
- Approaches for Reducing Expert Burden in Bayesian Network Parameterization.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Harnessing community expertise in understanding food insecurity to inform responses in a local government area in Victoria, Australia: a mixed methods photovoice study.BMC public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine structured expert judgement (SEJ) elicitation as a method to provide robust, defensible data for three determinants of household food security (food cost, household disposable income and physical access) for quantifying a proof-of-concept integrating decision support system for food security.
designSEJ elicitation is a validated method for obtaining unavailable data, but its use in household food security in high-income countries is novel. Investigate Discuss Estimate Aggregate (IDEA) elicitation protocol was implemented, including quantitative and qualitative elements. Using specific questions related to three determinants, food security experts were encouraged to Investigate - estimate individual first-round responses to these questions, Discuss - with each other evidence on the reasoning and logic of their estimates, Estimate - second-round responses, following which these judgements were combined using mathematical Aggregation.
settingVictoria, Australia.
participantsFive experts with a range of expertise in the area of household food insecurity participated in the SEJ elicitation process.
resultsThe experts' ability to provide reliable estimates was tested and informed the aggregation of the collection of individual estimates into a single quantity of interest for use in decision support. The results of the quantitative elicitation show the impact of combinations of varying household income, food cost and physical access on household food security status and severity and is supported by the experts reasoning during elicitation.
conclusionThis research provides insight to the application of SEJ where elicited data can inform and support intervention decision-making specific to household food security, especially where evidence is absent or of poor quality.
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.