↓ Skip to main content

Capturing health and eating status through a nutritional perception screening questionnaire (NPSQ9) in a randomised internet-based personalised nutrition intervention: the Food4Me study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Capturing health and eating status through a nutritional perception screening questionnaire (NPSQ9) in a randomised internet-based personalised nutrition intervention: the Food4Me study
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0624-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodrigo San-Cristobal, Santiago Navas-Carretero, Carlos Celis-Morales, Katherine M. Livingstone, Barbara Stewart-Knox, Audrey Rankin, Anna L. Macready, Rosalind Fallaize, Clare B. O’Donovan, Hannah Forster, Clara Woolhead, Marianne C. Walsh, Christina P. Lambrinou, George Moschonis, Yannis Manios, Miroslaw Jarosz, Hannelore Daniel, Eileen R. Gibney, Lorraine Brennan, Thomas E. Gundersen, Christian A. Drevon, Mike Gibney, Cyril F. M. Marsaux, Wim H. M. Saris, Julie A. Lovegrove, Lynn J. Frewer, John C. Mathers, J. Alfredo Martinez

Abstract

National guidelines emphasize healthy eating to promote wellbeing and prevention of non-communicable diseases. The perceived healthiness of food is determined by many factors affecting food intake. A positive perception of healthy eating has been shown to be associated with greater diet quality. Internet-based methodologies allow contact with large populations. Our present study aims to design and evaluate a short nutritional perception questionnaire, to be used as a screening tool for assessing nutritional status, and to predict an optimal level of personalisation in nutritional advice delivered via the Internet. Data from all participants who were screened and then enrolled into the Food4Me proof-of-principle study (n = 2369) were used to determine the optimal items for inclusion in a novel screening tool, the Nutritional Perception Screening Questionnaire-9 (NPSQ9). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed on anthropometric and biochemical data and on dietary indices acquired from participants who had completed the Food4Me dietary intervention (n = 1153). Baseline and intervention data were analysed using linear regression and linear mixed regression, respectively. A final model with 9 NPSQ items was validated against the dietary intervention data. NPSQ9 scores were inversely associated with BMI (β = -0.181, p < 0.001) and waist circumference (Β = -0.155, p < 0.001), and positively associated with total carotenoids (β = 0.198, p < 0.001), omega-3 fatty acid index (β = 0.155, p < 0.001), Healthy Eating Index (HEI) (β = 0.299, p < 0.001) and Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS) (β = 0. 279, p < 0.001). Findings from the longitudinal intervention study showed a greater reduction in BMI and improved dietary indices among participants with lower NPSQ9 scores. Healthy eating perceptions and dietary habits captured by the NPSQ9 score, based on nine questionnaire items, were associated with reduced body weight and improved diet quality. Likewise, participants with a lower score achieved greater health improvements than those with higher scores, in response to personalised advice, suggesting that NPSQ9 may be used for early evaluation of nutritional status and to tailor nutritional advice. NCT01530139 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Professor 9 6%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 44 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Psychology 8 6%
Other 33 23%
Unknown 49 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,625,215
of 16,560,800 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#945
of 1,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,074
of 414,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#105
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,560,800 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 414,448 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.