ArticleEuropean journal of public health2025
Comparisons of Nutri-Score and NutrInform Battery on consumer preferences, objective understanding, and food choices among Portuguese consumers.
Article in European journal of public health, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Front-of-pack nutrition labels (FoPLs) are a cost-effective measure to inform consumers about the nutritional values of foods and to help them make healthier food choices at the point of purchase. This study compared the preference and performance-objective understanding and food choices-of Portuguese consumers for two FoPLs: Nutri-Score and NutrInform Battery. An experimental study was conducted in 2022 on a representative sample of 1014 Portuguese adults (mean age = 45.1 ± 13.8 years; 49% women). Participants were randomly allocated to either the Nutri-Score or the NutrInform Battery group and asked to complete an online questionnaire testing their objective understanding of the label and the effect on purchase intentions for three food categories as well as perceived helpfulness and perception of the FoPL. In terms of participants' ability to identify the most nutritionally favourable foods, Nutri-Score outperformed NutrInform Battery in all categories, with the highest performance observed for the identification of the three foods of higher nutritional value within the breakfast product category (OR = 27.8 [19.4-39.9], P < .0001). Overall, with Nutri-Score, participants were more likely to intend to purchase more nutritionally favourable products than with NutrInform Battery (OR ranging from 2.01 [1.50-2.68] for breakfast cereals to 14.6 [10.2-20.9] for added fats, P < .0001). In terms of preference, Nutri-Score was more appreciated, and perceived as easier to use, more reliable, and more informative than NutrInform Battery. The Nutri-Score appeared to be a more appreciated and effective tool than NutrInform Battery for helping Portuguese consumers to choose foods with a better nutritional composition.
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.