ArticleBMC public health2022
"Maybe a little bit of guilt isn't so bad for the overall health of an individual": a mixed-methods exploration of young adults' experiences with calorie labelling.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining use of restaurant nutrition information among adults living in England engaged in disordered eating or weight management efforts.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Article
- A call for increased measurement of eating disorders and disordered eating in federal surveillance in Canada.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2025Article
- Impact of out-of-home nutrition labelling on people with eating disorders: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Does menu calorie labelling cause or exacerbate eating disorders?International journal of obesity (2005) · 2024Review
- Review
- Assessing public perception and awareness of UK mandatory calorie labeling in the out-of-home sector: Using Twitter and Google trends data.Obesity science & practice · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMenu labelling, and more specifically calorie labelling, has been posited as an intervention to improve nutrition literacy and the healthfulness of consumers' food purchases. However, there is some concern calorie labelling may unintentionally trigger or exacerbate disordered eating among vulnerable persons. The purpose of this research was to explore young adults' experiences with labelling, with a focus on its implications for their relationships with food.
methodsIndividual semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants from a campus-based menu labelling study. Interview data were inductively coded using thematic analysis and supported by survey data assessing disordered eating, body esteem, and related constructs.
resultsThe sample consisted of 13 participants (10 women, 3 men), most of whom perceived themselves as "about the right weight" (62%). Four key themes included: (1) participants' support of and skepticism about labelling interventions, (2) the identification of knowledge and autonomy as mechanisms of labelling interventions, (3) the role of the individual's and others' relationships with food in experiences with labelling, and (4) disordered eating and dieting as lenses that shape experiences with interventions. Participants' perceptions of and experiences with calorie labels were shaped by gender, body esteem, and disordered eating risk.
conclusionsThe results provide insight into the complexity of young adults' interactions with labelling interventions and context for future research exploring the unintended consequences of public health nutrition interventions.
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.