Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36235678›Full record

ArticleNutrients2022

Eating Choices-The Roles of Motivation and Health Literacy: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Urszula Zwierczyk, Christoph Sowada, Mariusz Duplaga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Adaptation and Validation of the S-NutLit Scale to Assess Nutritional Literacy in the Peruvian Population.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Urszula ZwierczykDepartment of Health Promotion and e-Health, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Skawińska Str. 8, 31-066 Krakow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0131-2108
Christoph SowadaDepartment of Health Economics and Social Security, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Skawińska Str. 8, 31-066 Krakow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8900-1119
Mariusz DuplagaDepartment of Health Promotion and e-Health, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Skawińska Str. 8, 31-066 Krakow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-6963-8414

Funding

Jagiellonian University Medical College U1C/P04/NO/02.13, 06/IDUB/2019/94
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Food choices are determined by intrinsic and extrinsic product characteristics, biological and physiological features, psychological factors, and situational and socio-cultural factors. Self-determination theory offers the explanation of health behavior change identifying motivations located along a continuum of autonomy. Another approach to the motivations guiding health behaviors, including food choices, relies on distinguishing thematic categories. Health motivations seem to be an obvious determinant of health behaviors, but final decisions regarding health are also the effect of other types of motivations such as economic, cultural, or emotional. The role of marketing pressure in modern society is perceived to be an important source of motivation for purchasing food and other products. The Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA) framework was initially proposed in order to explain the processing of brand information from advertisements and was later expanded to other areas, including health and nutritional behaviors. The aim of this study was the analysis of determinants of food choices. We have developed a common regression model including six categories of motivations addressed by the Eating Motivations Scale and three health literacy types corresponding with element of ability from the MOA framework, adjusted for socio-demographic factors, health status, and the use of the Internet and TV. The analysis was performed on data from a computer-assisted web-based interviewing (CAWI) survey among 2008 adult Internet users completed in May 2022. The uni- and multivariate linear regression models were developed with the Index of Unhealthy Food Choices (IUFC), calculated based on the responses to items asking about the frequency of the consumption of twelve food categories. Univariate modeling revealed that IUFC is significantly associated with health, food, and e-health literacies and with five out of six eating motivations. However, the multivariate regression model yielded significant associations only for eating motivations but not for the three literacy scores. Health motivation was negatively associated with IUFC (B, standard error (SE): 0.83, 0.07; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.98-0.69), but positively with emotional (B, SE: 0.22, 0.04; 95% CI: 0.14-0.3), economic (B, SE: 0.41, 0.08; 95% CI: 0.25-0.56), and marketing (B, SE: 0.62, 0.08; 95% CI: 0.47-0.78) motivations. Our findings suggest that motivations guiding food choices may prevail over the element of 'ability' distinguished in the frameworks and models that explain people's behaviors, including behaviors relating to health. Thus, it is essential to emphasize development of appropriate motivations and not only to provide knowledge and skills. Furthermore, one should also remember motivations other than health motivations when searching for the determinants of health behaviors.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyMotivationAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFood PreferencesHealth BehaviorHumansSurveys and Questionnairesadvertisingdigital health literacyeating motivationse-health literacyfood choicesfood literacyhealth literacymarketing

Identifiers

PMID36235678
PMCPMC9573739

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.