↓ Skip to main content

Role of expendable income and price in food choice by low income families

Overview of attention for article published in Appetite, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 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
Role of expendable income and price in food choice by low income families
Published in
Appetite, September 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2013.08.018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cate Burns, Kay Cook, Helen Mavoa

Abstract

The public health literature suggests that the cheapness of energy-dense foods is driving the obesity epidemic. We examined food purchases in low-income families and its relationship to the price of food and availability of funds. In-depth interviews were conducted with 22 parents with children less than 15 years of age whose major source of income was a government pension. A photo taxonomy, where participants sorted 50 photos of commonly purchased foods, was used to explore food choice. The most common food groupings used by the participants were: basic, emergency, treat and comfort. The process of food purchase was described by participants as weighing up the attributes of a food in relation to price and money available. Shoppers nominated the basic unit of measurement as quantity per unit price and the heuristic for food choice when shopping as determining "value for money" in a process of triage relating to food purchase decisions. Participants stated satiation of hunger to be the most common "value" relative to price. Given that the foods nominated as filling tended to be carbohydrate-rich staples, we suggest that public health initiatives need to acknowledge this triage process and shape interventions to promote nutrition over satiation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 225 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 18%
Student > Master 38 17%
Student > Bachelor 31 14%
Researcher 25 11%
Professor 9 4%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 51 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 41 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 6%
Other 44 19%
Unknown 59 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 September 2013.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Appetite
#3,477
of 4,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,079
of 208,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Appetite
#43
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 208,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.