Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41021916›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Preferences, Perceptions, and Use of Online Nutrition Content Among Young Australian Adults: Qualitative Study.

Bill Tiger Lam, Ewa A Szymlek-Gay, Christel Larsson, Claire Margerison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Bill Tiger LamSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6618-1014
Ewa A Szymlek-GaySchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6533-7945
Christel LarssonDepartment of Food and Nutrition, and Sport Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5785-0271
Claire MargerisonSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2722-6128

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNutrition misinformation is pervasive on frequently accessed online sources such as social media platforms and websites. Young adults are at a high risk of viewing or engaging with this content due to their high internet and social media usage.

objectiveThis study aimed to understand young adults' preferences, perceptions, and use of online nutrition content.

methodsYoung Australian adults (aged 18-25 years) were recruited and interviewed individually via video calling (Zoom; Zoom Video Communications) between December 2023 and February 2024. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling using Facebook advertising. The interviewer followed a semistructured format, and questions were guided using a piloted template. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo (Lumivero) to explore the preferences, perceptions, and use of online nutrition content among the sample.

resultsThe sample (N=20; mean age 22.9 y, SD 2.3 y) was predominantly female (n=13, 65%) and had, or was studying toward, a tertiary qualification (16/17, 94%). Most participants used social media (19/20, 95%) and internet websites (16/20, 80%) to access nutrition content. Other platforms used included generative artificial intelligence (n=1), apps (n=1), eBooks (n=1), newsletters (n=1), and podcasts (n=1). When exploring perceptions, most participants agreed that online nutrition content was quick and easy to find and informative. Furthermore, perceived reliability and engagement depended on several factors such as the creator's credentials, length and format of content, consensus on topics, and sponsorships. Short-form content was not considered reliable, despite its engaging nature. Content containing sponsorships or product endorsements was met with skepticism. However, participants were more likely to trust content reportedly created by health professionals, but it was unknown whether they were accessing verified professionals. The oversaturation of content demotivated participants from evaluating the reliability of content. When asked about preferences, participants valued both short- and long-form content, and evidence-based content such as statistics and references and preferred casual and entertaining content that incorporated high-quality and dynamic editing techniques such as voiceovers.

conclusionsThe study identified the online nutrition content sources and topics young Australian adults access and the key factors that influence their perceptions and preferences. Young Australian adults acknowledge that misinformation is not exclusive to certain platforms. The accessibility and engagement of content and the ambiguity of professional "credentials" may lead them to trust information that is potentially of low quality and accuracy. Findings also show that there needs to be a balance between engaging formats and presenting evidence-based information when designing online nutrition content to engage these audiences while combatting nutrition misinformation. Future research should explore how these factors impact usage of online nutrition content and dietary behaviors among young Australian adults. Further consultation with this cohort can inform tailored interventions that aim to enhance their food and nutrition literacy and diet quality.

Indexed as

InternetSocial MediaAdolescentAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchYoung AdultAustraliainternetmisinformationnutritiononlineonline nutrition contentperceptionspreferencesqualitativesocial mediayoung adults

Identifiers

PMID41021916
PMCPMC12519026

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.