↓ Skip to main content

Dietitians' perceptions of the healthiness of packaged food

Overview of attention for article published in Appetite, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
51 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.
Article details
Title
Dietitians' perceptions of the healthiness of packaged food
Published in
Appetite, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.036
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the factors that influence Australian dietitians' perceptions of the healthiness of a sample of packaged foods. Participant dietitians (n = 120) rated the healthiness (1, less healthy to 10, more healthy), of seven packaged foods (bread, confectionary, breakfast cereal, flavoured yoghurt, curry, spread and crumble) based on information obtained from an ingredient list and nutrient information panel (NIP). Influences on each food's rating were explored via Likert-scale and open-response questions. There was variation in the healthiness rating of all foods, however, least so for confectionary and crumble. Bread (M = 7.39 ± 1.44) and confectionary (M = 1.33 ± 0.69) were rated the most and least healthy foods respectively. Crumble was rated significantly (p = 0.03) healthier by those with more experience (≥6 vs. ≤5 years). No other differences were detected. Highly reported influences on healthiness were sugar, total fat, sodium and saturated fat values and the ingredient list. Content analysis identified 13 categories of information not provided on the NIP that influenced participants' ratings. References to the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating food groups, micronutrients not listed as ingredients, comparisons to other foods, and fibre were most common among the sample. These results have implications for research or public health policy where expert opinion of the healthiness of food is used as a reference measure.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 5 10%
Lecturer 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 18 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 18 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 August 2019.
All research outputs
#14,541,990
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Appetite
#3,132
of 4,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,279
of 324,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Appetite
#50
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 324,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.