Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41987266›Full record

ArticleBMC global and public health2026

Understandings of ultra-processed foods among adults with responsibility for household food activities in the United Kingdom: a qualitative study.

Michael Essman, Jennie C Parnham, Kiara Chang, Mike Etkind, Prisha Shah, Deb Smith, Milica Vasiljevic, Emma Boyland, Steven Cummins, Eszter P Vamos and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC global and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Food Processing Knowledge in Relation to Healthiness and Self-Reported Understanding of the Health Star Rating in Australia.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

12 authors.

Michael EssmanMedical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. mike.essman@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
Jennie C ParnhamPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Kiara ChangPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Mike Etkind, London, UK.
Prisha Shah, London, UK.
Deb Smith, London, UK.
Milica VasiljevicDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Emma BoylandDepartment of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Steven CumminsDepartment of Public Health, Environments & Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Eszter P VamosPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Martin WhiteMedical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jean AdamsMedical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/7National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Public Health Research NIHR 204000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is accumulating evidence that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are associated with many non-communicable diseases. In the United Kingdom (UK), UPFs account for more than half of mean daily energy intake. There is limited evidence describing how individuals make sense of UPFs in their daily lives. In this study, we aim to explore public perceptions of UPFs and their relationship to health; how these are shaped by different information sources; whether perceptions influence purchasing and consumption; and proposed solutions for reducing UPF consumption.

methodsWe undertook 30 qualitative, one-to-one interviews with people living in the UK, aged 18 years or older, with household responsibility for food activities recruited using social media advertisements. Interviews followed a semi-structured topic guide reflecting the aims. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Members of a Public Involvement and Engagement group helped interpret emergent findings.

resultsReflexive thematic analysis identified five interconnected themes: (1) understanding of UPFs, (2) influences on understanding, (3) decision-making around UPFs, (4) barriers and enablers to reducing UPF consumption, and (5) proposed solutions. Food processing often made more sense to participants as a continuum rather than ordinal categories. There was particular confusion regarding the boundary between processed and ultra-processed food. Participants described an overwhelming food-related information environment. Personal and anecdotal experience was particularly powerful. While industry-sponsored information was met with scepticism, the personal testimonies of social media influencers were seen as relatable or helpful. Participants' perceptions of UPFs sometimes influenced their purchasing and consumption. However, cost, convenience, taste, and family practices were often as or more important. Suggestions to help reduce UPF consumption ranged from education to fiscal policies.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that the public may benefit from support in navigating a complex food information landscape, including clearer and more actionable communication about UPFs and related topics. Policy approaches that modify the food environment are also likely to be useful, particularly those that make less processed options more affordable, available, and convenient for people with limited time.

Indexed as

ConvenienceFood choiceFood perceptionsHealth communicationNova classificationNutrition informationPublic perceptionsQualitative interviewsSocial mediaUltra-processed foods

Identifiers

PMID41987266
PMCPMC13085418

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.