ArticleEuropean journal of public health2023
Comparative understanding and preference of Nutri-Score and NutrInform Battery in a sample of Spanish consumers.
Article in European journal of public health, 2023. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of a Combined Front-of-Pack Nutrition Label and Nutrition Education Intervention on Healthier Choices of Freshly Prepared Beverages: An Online Randomized Controlled Trial.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mortality risk in relation to diet quality assessed by the 2023 nutri-score nutrient profiling model: a prospective analysis.European journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Comparisons of Nutri-Score and NutrInform Battery on consumer preferences, objective understanding, and food choices among Portuguese consumers.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Using the Nutri-Score to visualise food reformulation in Germany: the case of breakfast cereals.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The Nutri-Score Scale-A Tool for Assessing the Nutritional Quality of Processed Meat Products Available on the Polish Market.Nutrients · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterpretive front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) are supported by World Health Organization as an important policy tool to promote healthy diets. At present, various FoPLs formats co-exist in the European Union (EU). However, as part of the Farm to Fork strategy published in 2020, the European Commission stated that it would propose a single mandatory FoPL. The aim of this study was to analyze Spanish consumers' preference and objective understanding of Nutri-Score and NutrInform, two FoPLs that are currently the subject of debate in the EU.
methodsIn a representative sample of 1026 Spanish adults (50% women, mean age ± SD = 46 ± 14 years), objective understanding was assessed by asking participants to identify the healthiest food products in three food categories (breakfast products, breakfast cereals and added fats). The preference dimensions were tested by asking participants about the perceived helpfulness of the FoPL in discriminating the nutritional quality of food products (subjective understanding) and their overall assessment of the FoPL's ease of use, informativeness, trust and liking (perception).
resultsIn terms of objective understanding, Nutri-Score was significantly associated with an increase in consumers' ability to identify healthier food products across all food categories compared with NutrInform [OR (odds ratio) = 19.1 [14.2-25.7], P < 0.0001]. On the preference dimension, Nutri-Score was perceived as significantly easier to use and was more liked than NutrInform (standardized principal component analysis dimension, respectively, 0.32 ± 1.58 vs. -0.29 ± 1.66, P < 0.0001 and 0.080 ± 1.18 vs. -0.072 ± 1.17, P = 0.039).
conclusionsThis study provides new evidence to support Nutri-Score in comparison with NutrInform in Spanish consumers, on both objective understanding and preference aspects.
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.