ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Participatory Methods in Food Behaviour Research: A Framework Showing Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Methods.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. 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.
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Participatory design of an infographic to help support the care of people living with complex regional pain syndrome.British journal of pain · 2023Article
- Bean Cuisine: The Potential of Citizen Science to Help Motivate Changes in Pulse Knowledge and Consumption.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Fecal Microbiota Composition as a Metagenomic Biomarker of Dietary Intake.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Toward Systems Models for Obesity Prevention: A Big Role for Big Data.Current developments in nutrition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A trend is visible in the food literature showing an increasing number of publications on studies that incorporate some form of participant engagement, such as citizen science and community-based participatory research. This "participation trend" will inevitably affect the scientific field of food behaviour research. This new trend is however not only associated with advantages, and a critical reflection on both the advantages and disadvantages is needed. The current article is a position paper that contributes to the literature in two main ways. First, participation is still in the developmental stage. Many different forms, methods and definitions are used. By providing a structured overview of a variety of participatory methods derived from a focused search of the literature on food behaviour, we aim to clarify the relationships between the various forms of participation methods. Second, the involvement of citizens in research is increasingly calling for novel research methods (e.g., voluntary recruitment and active involvement), which may be accompanied by both advantages and disadvantages. We add to the literature by developing a framework that indicates the advantages and disadvantages of participatory methods in food behaviour research. Our study highlights the relevance of differentiating the goal of the researcher (efficiency versus engagement) and the role of citizens (collecting versus creating), thus implying a trade-off between cost-effectiveness and involvement, as well as between data richness and data quality. Our work is a first effort to create structure and guidance within a new area. Our efforts could be used in future research aimed at developing more extensive protocols and tools for the application of participation in research, thereby offering a controlled manner to ensure that research stays abreast of our changing society.
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.