| Title |
Portion Size: Latest Developments and Interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Obesity Reports, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13679-017-0239-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ingrid Steenhuis, Maartje Poelman |
| Abstract |
The aim of this review is to provide an overview of (1) underlying mechanisms of the effect of portion size on energy intake, (2) external factors explaining the portion size effect and (3) interventions and measurements aimed at food portion size. Previous studies have shown that portion sizes have increased in recent decades. Many experimental studies have been conducted to unravel the mechanisms underlying the portion-size effect on food intake (e.g. the appropriateness mechanism, the 'unit bias' mechanism, the 'previous experience/expectation' mechanism, the 'visual cue' mechanism and the 'bite size' mechanism). In addition, external factors have been found to drive food portion selection and consumption (e.g. value for money, mindless eating, levels of awareness, estimation bias. Research on several interventions (ranging from 'providing information' to 'eliminating choice') have been conducted, but remain scarce, especially intervention studies in which portion size is a key focus in weight loss. Moreover, only three new instruments with respect to portion control behavior have been developed. There is considerable evidence for the portion-size effect on energy intake. However, the work on interventions targeting portion size and measurements for portion control behavior are limited. Moreover, from the literature it is not yet clear what type of interventions work best, for whom and in what context. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 5 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 15% |
| France | 2 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Norway | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 8 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 8 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 230 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 11% |
| Researcher | 21 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 11% |
| Unknown | 66 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 15% |
| Psychology | 25 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 40 | 17% |
| Unknown | 79 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 06 April 2023.
All research outputs
#870,585
of 25,651,057 outputs
Outputs from Current Obesity Reports
#67
of 426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,830
of 325,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Obesity Reports
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,651,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.6. 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 325,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.