Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42577752›Full record

ArticleFood science & nutrition2026

Consumer Perceptions of the German Food-Based Dietary Guidelines and the Complementary Potential of AI-Based Nutrition Tools.

Nicolas Hartmann, Philipp Sprengholz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Food science & nutrition, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Nicolas HartmannInstitute of Psychology University of Bamberg Bamberg Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4442-2438
Philipp SprengholzInstitute of Psychology University of Bamberg Bamberg Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9925-1920

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) are a key instrument for communicating healthy nutrition principles that are implemented in most countries. However, adherence remains low, and recent literature highlights the need for improvements. This exploratory study investigated consumer perceptions of the German FBDGs, focusing on strengths and areas for improvement. Ten individuals with diverse demographics, nutrition knowledge, and dietary motivation participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants evaluated the content and design of the FBDGs regarding both comprehensibility and applicability. Additionally, participants provided feedback on a proposed mock-up illustrating the concept of an AI-based feedback tool aimed at enhancing individualization and contextual aspects. Overall, participants expressed more criticism than approval. Although the FBDGs were generally considered easy to understand, many found them difficult to translate into daily practice. Participants perceived the FBDGs as (a) too general for individualized diets and (b) too theoretical, offering little support for behavior change. Positive feedback mainly referred to the simple and understandable language. The mock-up was received more positively, though some criticism regarding individualization was raised. The findings suggest that while the German FBDGs effectively illustrate healthy eating principles conceptually, they fall short in supporting real-life implementation. The presented AI-based tool represents a promising step toward more practical and individualized guidance but may still not be sufficient to induce substantial changes to behaviors. Future improvements to national dietary guidance may therefore require the development of complementary, behaviorally oriented programs that go beyond informational approaches and address the practical realities of everyday nutrition.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceconcept evaluationfood‐based dietary guidelinesnutrition communicationqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID42577752
PMCPMC13455116

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.