ArticlePublic health nutrition2024
'
Article in Public health nutrition, 2024. 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.
- Rethinking public health in the digital food era.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Article
- Differences in dietary intake between users and non-users of online grocery shopping among Japanese adults: a cross-sectional study.Nutrition journal · 2025Article
- Prevalence of online food delivery platforms, meal kit delivery, and online grocery use in five countries: an analysis of survey data from the 2022 International Food Policy Study.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2025Article
- Understanding food choices and promoting healthier food options among online food delivery service users in Australia: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Exploring Socioeconomic Disparities in Adults' Interactions with the Digital Food Environment: A Qualitative Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to understand what influences parents' purchasing behaviours when shopping for groceries online and potential ways to improve the healthiness of online grocery platforms.
designWe conducted semi-structured interviews, guided by the Marketing Mix framework. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse data.
settingOnline interviews were conducted with primary grocery shoppers.
participantsParents (
resultsMost participants perceived purchasing healthy food when shopping for groceries online to be more challenging compared to in physical stores. They expressed concerns about the prominence of online marketing for unhealthy food. Participants from lower socio-economic backgrounds often depended on online supermarket catalogues to find price promotions, but healthy options at discounted prices were limited. Across socio-economic groups, fresh items like meat and fruit were preferred to be purchased instore due to concerns about online food quality.Participants believed online grocery platforms should make healthy foods more affordable and supported regulations on supermarket retailers to promote healthy options and limit unhealthy food promotion online.
conclusionsParticipants had varied experiences with online grocery shopping, with both positive and negative aspects. Efforts to improve population diets need to include mechanisms to create health-enabling online grocery retail platforms. Government interventions to restrict marketing of unhealthy foods and promote marketing of healthy options on these platforms warrant investigation.
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.