ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Intuitive and Deliberative Dietary Decision-Making Preferences and Associated Factors in Cardiovascular Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study investigated the current status of dietary decision-making preferences and associated factors in patients with cardiovascular disease, aiming to provide preliminary evidence for understanding dietary decision-making patterns in this population. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using convenience sampling among 219 patients with cardiovascular disease recruited from a tertiary hospital in Jiangxi Province between January and May 2026. Data were collected using the General Information Questionnaire, the Preference for Intuition and Deliberation in Eating Decision-Making Scale, the Intuitive Eating Scale-2, and the Brief Self-Control Scale. Descriptive analysis, independent samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA, Spearman correlation analysis, and hierarchical multiple regression analysis were performed for data analysis. Results: The mean score for intuitive preference was 3.82±0.85, while that for deliberative preference was 2.87±0.92, with intuitive preference being significantly higher than deliberative preference. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed that self-control, intuitive eating, comorbidity, educational level, occupation, place of residence, living status, and gender were significantly associated with dietary decision-making preferences ( Conclusion: Patients with cardiovascular disease exhibited stronger intuitive than deliberative dietary decision-making preferences. Multiple psychological and clinical factors were significantly associated with these preferences. These findings provide preliminary evidence for understanding dietary decision-making patterns in this population.
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.