ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2026
Using Best-Worst Scaling to explore the perceived addictiveness of foods by processing level: a cross-sectional study among higher education students in Belgium.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigher education students increasingly consume ultra-processed foods (UPFs) because they are affordable, convenient, and heavily marketed, and this pattern has been linked to adverse health outcomes. Beyond health risks, emerging evidence suggests UPFs may elicit addictive-like eating behaviors. To better understand which foods are perceived as most addictive, we applied a Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) approach-a stated-preference method-to quantify the relative perceived addictiveness of foods varying in level of processing.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted between May 10 and July 5, 2024, among 609 higher education students in the province of Liège, Belgium. Food addiction was measured using the modified Yale Food Addiction Scale version 2.0 (mYFAS 2.0). To identify which foods were perceived as most and least addictive, we used a BWS choice experiment. Participants evaluated 15 sets of 5 foods (randomly selected from 30) and, in each set, identified the food that would trigger the most and the least addictive-like problems as defined by the mYFAS 2.0 criteria. From these repeated choices, we calculated a Relative Importance Score (RIS) for each food, based on the standardized difference between its best and worst selections. The RIS provides a continuous measure of each food's perceived addictiveness relative to all others. Foods were categorized using the NOVA classification.
resultsThe prevalence of food addiction was 24.0% in the sample (5.4% mild, 6.4% moderate, and 12.2% severe). BWS results showed clear differences in perceived addictiveness across foods. Ultra-processed foods consistently ranked as the most problematic, with salted potato chips (RIS = 7.662; 95% CI 7.458-7.866), chocolate brownies (RIS = 7.579; 95% CI 7.357-7.802), sugary sweets (RIS = 7.462; 95% CI 7.234-7.689), and sugary soft drinks (RIS = 7.227; 95% CI 6.971-7.482). These foods did not differ significantly from one another but were distinctly more problematic than minimally processed or processed foods.
conclusionAddictive-like eating behaviors were highly prevalent among higher education students. The application of a BWS design provided a nuanced, quantitative ranking of foods based on perceived addictiveness, highlighting the predominance of ultra-processed items. These findings underscore the need for targeted public health interventions addressing the role of UPFs in problematic eating behaviors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.