↓ Skip to main content

Health communication implications of the perceived meanings of terms used to denote unhealthy foods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Obesity, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 186)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Health communication implications of the perceived meanings of terms used to denote unhealthy foods
Published in
BMC Obesity, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40608-016-0142-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simone Pettigrew, Zenobia Talati, Iain S. Pratt

Abstract

Using appropriate terminology in nutrition education programs and behaviour change campaigns is important to optimise the effectiveness of these efforts. To inform future communications on the topic of healthy eating, this study explored adults' perceptions of the meaning of four terms used to describe unhealthy foods: junk food, snack food, party food, and discretionary food. Australian adults were recruited to participate in an online survey that included demographic items and open-ended questions relating to perceptions of the four terms. In total, 409 respondents aged 25-64 years completed the survey. 'Junk food' was the term most clearly aligned with unhealthiness, and is therefore likely to represent wording that will have salience and relevance to many target audience members. Snack foods were considered to include both healthy and unhealthy food products, and both snack foods and party foods were often described as being consumed in small portions. Despite being used in dietary guidelines, the term 'discretionary food' was unfamiliar to many respondents. These results demonstrate that different terms for unhealthy foods can have substantially different meanings for audience members. A detailed understanding of these meanings is needed to ensure that nutrition guidance and health promotion campaigns use appropriate terminology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 21 27%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 29 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 32 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Psychology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 31 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,514,883
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from BMC Obesity
#29
of 186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,744
of 425,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Obesity
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.