ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2021
A Mixed-Method Approach to Develop and Validate an Integrated Food Literacy Tool for Personalized Food Literacy Guidance.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation and adaptation of the self-perceived food literacy scale (SPFL) among Hebrew and Arabic speaking women in Israel.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Data in Personalized Nutrition: Bridging Biomedical, Psycho-behavioral, and Food Environment Approaches for Population-wide Impact.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Review
- Measurement of food literacy among the adult population in urban Uganda and Kenya: development and validation of an East African food literacy scale.Public health nutrition · 2024Article
- Article
- Development and psychometric analysis of a new tool to assess food literacy in diabetic patients.BMC nutrition · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of a Food and Nutrition Literacy Questionnaire for Chinese Adults.Nutrients · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFood literacy refers to all practicalities associated with healthy eating. Current food literacy tools are limited in practical use in clinical practice. Therefore, an integrated food literacy tool (IFLT) to assess food literacy and to personalize food literacy guidance was developed and validated.
methodsFollowing an iterative process, a food literacy framework was developed and food literacy goals were defined. A corresponding food literacy screener (FLS) to assess food literacy was developed along with an algorithm to provide personalized food literacy guidance based on the food literacy assessment. Content validation of the FLS was assessed by a panel of experts, measuring item and scale content validity index (I/S-CVI) and by the target population in semi structured interviews with 15 adults of reproductive age. Subsequently, an online cross-sectional survey was conducted among 114 adults of reproductive age to evaluate the validity of the FLS. Construct validity was examined against both the validated healthy eating and weight self-efficacy scale and against a food frequency questionnaire assessing healthy eating self-efficacy (HESE) and diet quality, respectively. Reliability was assessed with a two-week test-retest. Pearson correlation tests were conducted.
resultsAn IFLT consisting of a FLS and corresponding algorithm to personalize food literacy guidance by prioritizing food literacy goals was developed. The IFLT includes 24 food literacy goals, addressed by 17 FLS items. Every item received a weighting factor based on theory and expert opinion to prioritize food literacy goals according to personal needs. Content validity revealed that the FLS was rated relevant by experts (S-CVI = 0.93) and well-understood by the target population. The FLS has a good construct validity as it was positively correlated with diet quality (r = 0.536,
conclusionThe newly developed IFLT is a practically applicable, context specific theory-and expert-based dual purpose tool to assess food literacy and to personalize food literacy guidance by prioritizing individuals' food literacy goals to their needs.
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.