ArticleScientific reports2024
Development and validation of the Perceived Effectiveness of Nutrition Messages Scale.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An understanding of the extent to which target audiences consider different nutrition-related messages to be effective could assist campaign developers design more persuasive communications. Accordingly, this study sought to develop and assess the utility of the Perceived Effectiveness of Nutrition Messages Scale (PENMS). A longitudinal online survey was completed by Australian adults (n = 5,014 at Time 1 and 2,880 at Time 2). At T1, respondents saw one of two messages promoting healthy eating. They were then administered the PENMS, and asked how likely they were to engage in the behaviour specified in the message. Respondents completed the PENMS again at T2. An exploratory factor analysis was performed on PENMS scores and measures of reliability and validity obtained. Two factors were identified: 'effects perceptions' (Factor 1) and 'message perceptions' (Factor 2). Internal consistency of scores was 0.82 for Factor 1 and 0.70 for Factor 2. Test re-test reliability was 0.76 and 0.69 for Factors 1 and 2, respectively. Scores on both factors were moderately correlated with behavioural intentions. The favourable results for PENMS scores suggest the scale may be a useful tool for assessing the extent to which target audiences consider different nutrition-related messages to be effective.
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.