Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34193103›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Food and health promotion literacy among employees with a low and medium level of education in the Netherlands.

Hanne C S Sponselee, Willemieke Kroeze, Maartje P Poelman, Carry M Renders, Kylie Ball, Ingrid H M Steenhuis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Hanne C S SponseleeDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, VU University Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands. h.c.s.sponselee@vu.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4905-4953
Willemieke KroezeDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, VU University Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Maartje P PoelmanChair Group Consumption and Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University and Research, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Carry M RendersDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, VU University Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Kylie BallInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Ingrid H M SteenhuisDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, VU University Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences · NLChristian University of Applied Sciences · NLDeakin University · AUWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

ZonMw 50-53115-98-004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrior research indicates a positive association between socioeconomic position and health literacy levels. We hypothesize comparable socioeconomic gradients for food literacy. This study aims to determine the level of self-perceived food literacy and health promotion literacy among adults with a low and medium level of education and from various subgroups, as well as the association between these food and health literacy levels. Furthermore, this study aims to explore the associations of self-perceived food literacy (SPFL) and health promotion literacy (HPL) in BMI.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among employees with a low and medium level of education. Descriptive analyses were performed to compute SPFL and HPL levels. Analyses of variance were performed to test differences between subgroups. The correlation between SPFL and HPL was computed by Pearson's r. Multivariate linear regression analyses were used to explore 1) the association between SPFL and HPL adjusted for demographic characteristics 2) the associations between SPFL and HPL in BMI.

resultsThe majority (63.1%) of all participants (n = 222) scored low on SPFL and 34.5% scored inadequate or problematic on HPL. No significant educational or weight-status differences were found in SPFL or HPL levels. On most levels, women compared to men and older compared to younger employees scored significantly higher. A small positive correlation between the two mean levels was found, r = .25, P < .001 (n = 203). Multivariate linear regression analyses showed a significant association between SPFL and HPL (B = .31, 95% CI = .15-.48). No significant associations between SPFL and HPL in BMI were found.

conclusionsThis study suggests there is room for improvement in SPFL and HPL among adults with a low and medium level of education. Future research should consider comparing low and middle socioeconomic with high socioeconomic groups when exploring food and health literacy. Regarding health promotion activities for adults with a low and medium level of education, it is recommended to focus on improving both food and health literacy. Furthermore, more research is needed to explore direct proxies of weight-status to better understand the role of food and health literacy in overweight patterns.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEducational StatusFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleNetherlandsFood literacyHealth literacyHealth promotion literacyLevel of educationPreventionSelf-perceived food literacySocioeconomic health inequitiesWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID34193103
PMCPMC8243473
OpenAlexW3176472309

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.