ArticleNutrients2024
Do Primary Health Professionals in Brazil Have a Misperception about Food? The Role of Food Literacy as a Positive Predictor.
Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond the Myths: Brazilian Consumer Perceptions of Functional Food.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Risk perception is socially constructed; psychological elements control people's reactions to a hazard, and even health professionals may have difficulty determining what healthy food is. This work aimed to measure food literacy and food risk perceptions among primary healthcare professionals in a Brazilian city. In the first phase, 280 health professionals working in primary care in Rio Claro, Brazil, were studied. The Short Food Literacy Questionnaire (SFLQ-Br) and scales of risk and benefit perception of 50 foods were used. In the second phase, 20 professionals were interviewed to investigate the responses to different foods observed in the first phase. In this second phase, 16 users of the health system were also enrolled to understand their perceptions and how the nutrition messages conveyed by the health team reached them. Professionals scored an average of 34.5 on food literacy (for which there is a maximum score of 52). They showed difficulty with dietary guidelines and their interpretation. Food's risk and benefit perception were generally consistent with the recommendations of the Food Guide for the Brazilian Population. However, some processed foods or those with no proven health benefits were considered healthy by the study participants, indicating a biased perception (e.g., gelatin, processed turkey breast, cream crackers, and cereal bars). Less misperception was observed when food literacy was higher, which positively predicted risk perception. The reasons for identifying benefits of these foods ranged from the false impression that they are natural and nutritious foods to the comparative claim that they are better for health than similar foods. The results indicate the need to educate health professionals based on current references to avoid bias in population counseling.
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.