Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40055447›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Personalizing product sets to individual health priorities increases the healthfulness of hypothetical food choices in US adults.

Christopher R Gustafson, Henriette Gitungwa, Julie B Boron, Devin J Rose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Christopher R GustafsonDepartment of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 314A Filley Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0922, USA. cgustafson6@unl.edu.
Henriette GitungwaDepartment of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 314A Filley Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0922, USA.
Julie B BoronDepartment of Gerontology, University of Nebraska-Omaha, Omaha, NE, 68182, USA.
Devin J RoseDepartment of Food Science and Technology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA.

Funding

Agricultural Research Service 58-3060-2-040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, the potential for dietary personalization based on genetic/phenotypic characteristics to improve health has been studied. While promising, inputs into this biology-focused personalization process are intensive and may not align with an individual's own health priorities, which drive health behaviors. Here, we examine how personalizing food suggestions based on individuals' health priorities affects the healthiness of their food choices. We conducted a pre-registered experiment examining hypothetical food choices from three food categories in six conditions: (1) control, (2) health priority prime, (3) healthy product subset, (4) health priority prime + healthy product subset, (5) health priority prime + priority subset, and (6) health priority-based personalized product suggestions. Participants in conditions 2, 4, 5, and 6 first encountered a question asking them to select their top health priority from a list of options. In conditions 5, the subset of healthy items was described as foods beneficial for the selected health priority, while in condition 6, participants immediately saw the set of foods beneficial for the selected health priority, but had the option to see all foods instead. After making food choices, participants completed a survey with questions about the choice process, health priorities, and demographic variables. We used logistic regression to analyze the impact of condition on healthiness of food choices, and ordered logistic regression to examine the impact of condition on satisfaction with choices made. The experiment and survey were completed by 4171 adults (≥ 19 years) in the US, with the sample closely matching US distribution of age, sex, education, and income characteristics. There were no significant differences in the distribution of demographic characteristics among conditions. All intervention conditions significantly increased the likelihood that an individual chose a healthy food. However, interventions that combined priming with healthy subsets were significantly more effective than single interventions. Conditions that connected the healthy subsets to individuals' health priorities were particularly effective. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of selecting a healthy food was 4.77 (95% CI 4.12, 5.52) relative to the control condition when participants could view a subset described as helpful for their health priority. When people immediately viewed the personalized product set, the aOR increased to 11.67 (95% CI 0.1, 13,5). Likewise, analysis of nutrient content from food choices revealed that personalization decreased saturated fat, added sugar, and sodium and increased dietary fiber, potassium, iron, and calcium. However, product choice satisfaction was significantly lower in the personalized product set, which appears to be partially due to a tendency in this condition to forego choosing a product rather than selecting an unhealthy product. Personalization of product options based on individual health priorities should be tested in real-choice environments.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorDiet, HealthyFood PreferencesHealth PrioritiesAdultFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40055447
PMCPMC11889152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.