Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37905428›Full record

SynthesisNutrition research reviews2024

Who consumes ultra-processed food? A systematic review of sociodemographic determinants of ultra-processed food consumption from nationally representative samples.

Samuel J Dicken, Sulmaaz Qamar, Rachel L Batterham

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrition research reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
21.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Unhealthy Food and Beverage Marketing on Public Transport Infrastructure in Western Melbourne.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samuel J DickenCentre for Obesity Research, Department of Medicine, University College London (UCL), London WC1E 6JF, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5663-1715
Sulmaaz QamarCentre for Obesity Research, Department of Medicine, University College London (UCL), London WC1E 6JF, UK.
Rachel L BatterhamCentre for Obesity Research, Department of Medicine, University College London (UCL), London WC1E 6JF, UK.
University College Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-2015-06-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ultra-processed food (UPF) intake is associated with increased non-communicable disease risks. However, systematic reports on sociodemographic predictors of UPF intake are lacking. This review aimed to understand UPF consumption based on sociodemographic factors, using nationally representative cohorts. The systematic review was pre-registered (PROSPERO:CRD42022360199), following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE searches (‘ultra-processed/ultraprocessed’ and ‘ultra-processing/ultraprocessing’) until 7 September 2022 retrieved 1131 results. Inclusion criteria included: observational, nationally representative adult samples, in English, in peer-reviewed journals, assessing the association between sociodemographics and individual-level UPF intake defined by the NOVA classification. Exclusion criteria included: not nationally representative, no assessment of sociodemographics and individual-level UPF intake defined by NOVA. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Fifty-five papers were included, spanning thirty-two countries. All thirteen sociodemographic variables identified were significantly associated with UPF intake in one or more studies. Significant differences in UPF intake were seen across age, race/ethnicity, rural/urbanisation, food insecurity, income and region, with up to 10–20% differences in UPF intake (% total energy). Higher UPF intakes were associated with younger age, urbanisation and being unmarried, single, separated or divorced. Education, income and socioeconomic status showed varying associations, depending on country. Multivariate analyses indicated that associations were independent of other sociodemographics. Household status and gender were generally not associated with UPF intake. NOS averaged 5·7/10. Several characteristics are independently associated with high UPF intake, indicating large sociodemographic variation in non-communicable disease risk. These findings highlight significant public health inequalities associated with UPF intake, and the urgent need for policy action to minimise social injustice-related health inequalities.

Indexed as

Fast FoodsFood HandlingSocioeconomic FactorsAdultDietFemaleFood, ProcessedHumansMaleSociodemographic Factorsdiethealth inequalitysociodemographic determinantsultra-processed

Identifiers

PMID37905428
PMCPMC7617046
OpenAlexW4388034865

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.