ArticleBMC medicine2024
Temptation at every corner: exploring public perceptions of food cues and policy support for governmental food cue regulation in outdoor public spaces.
Article in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Voicing residents' perception of (commercial) food cues in outdoor public spaces: a photovoice study.BMC public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnhealthy visual food cues in outdoor public spaces are external drivers of unhealthy diets. Food cues are visible situations associated with food-related memories. This study aimed to gain insight into the (un)healthy food cues residents notice in outdoor public spaces in Dutch municipalities. It also aimed to explore residents' perceptions of food cues' influence on eating behaviour to gain insight into the acceptability of food cues and support for governmental food cue regulation.
methodsAn exploratory study was conducted among 101 adults who photographed outdoor visual food cues in their municipality and answered survey questions about the food cues using a bespoke app ('myfoodenvironment'). Participant and food cue characteristics were analysed. Associations between those characteristics, perceived influence on eating behaviour, acceptability of food cues and support for regulation were analysed.
resultsParticipants took 461 photographs of food cues. Most food cues visualised food (73.8%), 54.4% of which showed only unhealthy food. Food cues photographed by participants with a high level of education and those located near a food service outlet were more often perceived as stimulating others to eat compared to those photographed by participants with a middle education level and located near a food store or along the road (Fisher's exact test: p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). For most photographs, participants found the presence of food cues acceptable and were opposed to governmental cue regulation. However, when food cues visualised healthy food, they were more likely to be found acceptable than when visualising unhealthy food (χ
conclusionsUnhealthy food cues in outdoor public spaces were predominantly photographed by the participants. Yet, for most photographs, participants found the food cues acceptable and opposed governmental food cue regulation, although acceptance was higher for healthy food cues and opposition was lower for unhealthy food cues. These findings can serve as input for policymakers to develop governmental food cue regulations that may gain public support.
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.