↓ Skip to main content

5-a-day fruit and vegetable food product labels: reduced fruit and vegetable consumption following an exaggerated compared to a modest label

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2018
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
5-a-day fruit and vegetable food product labels: reduced fruit and vegetable consumption following an exaggerated compared to a modest label
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5528-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. M. Appleton, H. J. Pidgeon

Abstract

Food product labels based on the WHO 5-a-day fruit and vegetable (FV) message are becoming increasingly common, but these labels may impact negatively on complementary or subsequent FV consumption. This study aimed to investigate the impact of a '3 of your 5-a-day' versus a '1 of your 5-a-day' smoothie product label on subsequent FV consumption. Using an acute experimental design, 194 participants (90 males, 104 females) were randomised to consume a smoothie labelled as either '3 of your 5-a-day' (N = 97) or '1 of your 5-a-day' (N = 97) in full, following a usual breakfast. Subsequent FV consumption was measured for the rest of the day using 24-h recall. Usual FV consumption was also assessed via 24-h recall for the day before the study. Regression analyses revealed a significantly lower subsequent FV consumption following smoothies displaying the '3 of your 5-a-day' label compared to the '1 of your 5-a-day' label (Beta = - 0.15, p = 0.04). Secondary analyses revealed these effects to be driven mainly by changes to consumption in usual high FV consumers, in females and in vegetable as opposed to fruit consumption. These findings demonstrate a role for label information in food intake, and the potential negative impacts of an exaggerated food product label on healthy food consumption and healthy dietary profiles.

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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 19 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Psychology 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 20 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,305,660
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,595
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,161
of 329,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#82
of 317 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 329,224 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 317 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.