Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39651317›Full record

ArticleNutrition research and practice2024

Food preparation on a budget: an analysis of food consumption practices and the role of health consciousness.

Eunhye Park, Sung-Bum Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrition research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Eunhye ParkDepartment of Food Nutrition, College of BioNano Technology, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5470-3065
Sung-Bum KimDepartment of Business Administration, Inha University, Incheon 22212, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2817-6457

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesThis study is of significant importance as it aims to understand the food consumption practices of those trying to save money on food and the role of health consciousness in food choices. The specific objectives of the current study are 1) to track levels of online community activation over time in 2 online budget food communities, 2) to explore specific ingredients and food groups that are frequently mentioned in budget communities, and finally, 3) to compare the foods and staples of regular budget food and healthy budget food communities. These objectives are crucial in providing a comprehensive understanding of food consumption practices and health consciousness. SUBJECTS/

methodsThe data source for this study was Reddit, and subreddits related to budget foods were targeted for data preparation. After creating a food name dictionary, keyword analysis and topic modeling were conducted to identify key food groups. We compared the regular budget food group to the health-conscious budget food group.

resultsThe food items commonly mentioned in both groups could serve as key staples for people looking to save money on food preparation. Rice was mentioned the most in both groups. Whereas meat and flour products were more important to the regular budget food group, fruits and vegetables were more valuable to the healthy budget food group.

conclusionThe results of this research offer insights into the food purchasing behaviors of those attempting to save money and provide practical strategies to make budget foods healthier. This information can be valuable for individuals, policymakers, and health professionals in promoting more nutritious food choices.

Indexed as

Budgetconsciousnessfoodhealthpricetopic modeling

Identifiers

PMID39651317
PMCPMC11621435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.