ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Food Choice Motives and COVID-19 in Belgium.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
- Current Perceptions of Sustainable Diets in Ireland and the Outlook of Circular Eating Practices.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Change in Diet Quality and Meal Sources during the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Diverse Subset of Men and Women in the Cancer Prevention Study-3.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Sustainable choices of plant-based ('super') foods: examining the consumption patterns of German consumers on avocados.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- The Multifaceted Relationship between the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Food System.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Impacts of Self-Efficacy on Food and Dietary Choices during the First COVID-19 Lockdown in China.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the main motives driving dietary intake changes potentially introduced by preventive measures to address the pandemic, an online survey, using a 36-item Food Choice Questionnaire applied for the period before (the year 2019) and during (2020-2021) the pandemic, was distributed between July and October 2021 among adult residents from Belgium. A total of 427 eligible respondents, the majority Dutch-speaking, were included for analyses. The importance of nine motives for food choices, including health, mood, convenience, sensory appeal, natural content, price, weight control, familiarity and ethical concerns, was assessed by scoring from 1 to 5, and comparing mean scores from the during period with the before period. Sensory appeal was the most important food choice motive before (mean score of 4.02 ± 0.51) and during (3.98 ± 0.48) the pandemic. Convenience and health also ranked among the main motives, with health observed to become more important during the pandemic (3.69 ± 0.60 during vs. 3.64 ± 0.59 before). Additionally, mean scores of mood (3.41 ± 0.71 vs. 3.32 ± 0.58), natural content (3.35 ± 0.84 vs. 3.26 ± 0.85) and weight control (3.33 ± 0.79 vs. 3.25 ± 0.76) were significantly higher during as compared to before. The extent of change in the level of importance for natural content was smaller with increasing age, and for health larger for urban areas, but for other motives there were no significant differences across population subgroups. Changes in the level of importance were observed in both directions, while a moderate share of respondents declared no change, suggesting some persistence of food choice motives. Further activities within public health monitoring should be considered to fully understand the COVID-19 implications on food choice motives together with people's food behaviors and consumption.
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.