Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35836699›Full record

ArticleJournal of nutritional science2022

Suggested explanations for the (in)effectiveness of nutrition information interventions among adults with a low socioeconomic status: a scoping review.

Tim van Meurs, Joost Oude Groeniger, Willem de Koster, Jeroen van der Waal

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nutritional science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tim van MeursDepartment of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062PA Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7103-4337
Joost Oude GroenigerDepartment of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062PA Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0691-1679
Willem de KosterDepartment of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062PA Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9250-2072
Jeroen van der WaalDepartment of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062PA Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7565-8155
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unhealthy diets are a major threat to population health and are especially prevalent among those with a low socioeconomic status (SES). Health promotion initiatives often rely on nutrition information interventions (NIIs), but are usually less effective among adults with a low SES than in their high-SES counterparts. Explanations for this lower effectiveness are set out in extant studies. These have been conducted across a wide range of disciplines and subject fields and using a variety of methodological approaches. We have therefore conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesise the following: (1) explanations suggested in studies carried out in high-income countries for why NIIs are (in)effective among adults with a low SES and (2) whether these suggested explanations were studied empirically. Eight databases were searched for relevant studies published since 2009 across various disciplines. This identified 4951 papers, 27 of which were included in our review after screening. Only fifteen of these proposed an explanation for the (in)effectiveness of NIIs among adults with a low SES. The following four main themes were uncovered: health literacy, economic resources, social resources and convenience. Ten studies tested their explanations empirically, but the results were inconsistent. The reasons why NIIs are (in)effective among low-SES adults are therefore still largely unclear. Also, current literature predominantly relies on individualistic explanations, most notably focusing on psychological and economic attributes. Consequently, if the effectiveness of NIIs among low-SES populations is to be improved, future studies should examine a wider range of explanations and test them systematically and empirically.

Indexed as

IncomeSocial ClassEffectivenessHealth inequalitiesHealth informationHealth literacySocial inequalities

Identifiers

PMID35836699
PMCPMC9241061
OpenAlexW4285125294

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.