ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of hedonic hunger and intuitive eating status between pregnant and non-pregnant women.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare hedonic hunger and intuitive eating status between pregnant and non-pregnant individuals. The research was conducted with 722 participants (357 pregnant and 365 non-pregnant) in different units of Kars Harakani State Hospital. Data were collected using a Personal Information Form prepared by the researcher, the Power of Food Scale, and the Intuitive Eating Scale. Data were obtained through face-to-face interviews and analyzed using appropriate statistical methods in the SPSS software. No significant difference was found between pregnant and non-pregnant women in terms of socio-demographic characteristics. The total Power of Food Scale score was 3.01 ± 0.89 for pregnant women and 3.28 ± 0.88 for non-pregnant women, and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The total Intuitive Eating Scale score was 3.26 ± 0.61 for pregnant women and 3.34 ± 0.55 for non-pregnant women, and this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.070). Regression analysis showed that, among pregnant women, the total Intuitive Eating Scale score was not a significant predictor of the hedonic hunger score (R = 0.083, R²=0.007, p > 0.05), suggesting that intuitive eating behavior alone does not account for hedonic hunger during pregnancy and that other physiological or psychosocial factors may play a more prominent role in this population. Among non-pregnant women, however, the total Intuitive Eating Scale score was a significant negative predictor of the hedonic hunger score (R = 0.132, R²=0.018, p < 0.05), indicating that higher levels of intuitive eating were associated with lower hedonic hunger. This finding suggests that women who are more attuned to their internal hunger and satiety cues may be better protected against food environment-driven, pleasure-based eating beyond metabolic need - a clinically relevant insight for nutrition counseling and weight management interventions targeting non-pregnant women. Hedonic hunger was higher in the non-pregnant group compared to the pregnant group, while intuitive eating behavior was similar between the two groups.
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.