Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37590273›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

What do people think of intuitive eating? A qualitative exploration with rural Australians.

Nina Van Dyke, Michael Murphy, Eric J Drinkwater

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nina Van DykeMitchell Institute, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8872-3451
Michael MurphyMM Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Eric J DrinkwaterSchool of Exercise and Sport Science, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9594-9360
Charles Sturt University · AUVictorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory · AUVictoria University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence supports that intuitive eating is associated with many indicators of positive physical and mental health, with more recent longitudinal studies establishing causality. Most research, however, comprises either survey data or clinical trials. This study attempts to fill this evidentiary gap by using a qualitative methodology to explore people's understandings and reactions to intuitive eating, including perceived barriers and enablers to implementation. Three focus group discussions were conducted in a non-metropolitan region of Victoria, Australia, with a total of 23 participants. Focus group transcripts were thematically analysed using an inductive descriptive approach within a constructionist perspective. Findings indicate that the concept of intuitive eating was either unknown or misunderstood. Once intuitive eating was explained, most responses to implementing intuitive eating were negative. Participants felt that having complete choice around what they ate was unlikely to equate to a healthy or balanced diet, at least in the short term. They also argued that because everyday life was not intuitive in its structures, it would be difficult to eat intuitively. Despite these difficulties, participants appreciated that if they were able to overcome the various barriers and achieve a state of intuitive eating, they anticipated a range of long-term benefits to health and weight management. For intuitive eating to become a viable public health approach, this research suggests that intuitive eating needs to be much more widely publicised and better explained, and perhaps renamed. More significantly, people would need assistance with how to eat intuitively given the barriers identified.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorHealth StatusIntuitionAustralasian PeopleEmotionsFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchVictoria

Identifiers

PMID37590273
PMCPMC10434910
OpenAlexW4385938057

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.