ArticlePublic health nutrition2024
How big is too big? A qualitative study of discretionary food portion size norms among Australian consumers.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serving Size Information and Portion Control Cues on Energy-Dense Nutrient-Poor Packaged Snacks in Australian Supermarkets: Current Practices and Opportunities.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Differences between the normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes of discretionary foods.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe high availability of energy-dense nutrient-poor discretionary foods in large serving and package sizes may have shifted portion size norms (described as a typical perception of how much people choose to eat from a given food at a single eating occasion) towards larger sizes. Few public health recommendations exist around appropriate discretionary food portion sizes. This qualitative study aimed to explore the underlying rationale of portion size norms of discretionary foods among Australian adults 18-65 years.
designFour focus group sessions were conducted. Collected data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
settingFocus groups were held online via Zoom between September and October 2023.
participantsThirty-four participants were recruited in the study (mean age 38 years, 19 females).
resultsThe key themes raised from inductive analysis were personal factors, eating context factors and food environment factors relevant to the portion size norms. A framework was established to illustrate the interaction across these themes during the conceptualisation of the norms. For serving size availability, consumers found that there were limited serving size choices when making portion size selections and lacked the knowledge and skills in portion control.
conclusionsThese findings highlight the need to make positive changes to the current food environment and develop relevant public health guidelines around appropriate portion sizes to promote healthier portion size norms and enable better portion control.
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.