ArticleScientific reports2026
E-healthy diet literacy is associated with psychological well-being and diet-related risk behaviors among university students in Türkiye: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
E-healthy diet literacy is the ability to find, understand, appraise, and apply online healthy-eating information. We examined its associations with psychological well-being and diet-related risk behaviors in a cross-sectional convenience sample of 331 undergraduates aged 18-26 years in Ankara, Türkiye; 84.9% were female. Participants completed the e-Healthy Diet Literacy Questionnaire (e-HDLQ), World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5), and Eating Habits Index (EHI). Associations were modeled using multivariable linear regression and an exploratory covariate-adjusted path analysis with 5,000 bootstrap resamples. After multivariable adjustment, higher e-HDLQ scores were associated with higher WHO-5 scores (unstandardized B = 0.443; standardized β = 0.179; 95% confidence interval [CI] for B, 0.174 to 0.713; p = 0.001) and, in a model additionally including WHO-5, with lower EHI scores (B = - 0.123; β = -0.281; 95% CI for B, - 0.171 to - 0.075; p < 0.001). A one-standard-deviation higher e-HDLQ score was associated with a WHO-5 score 3.38 percentage points higher and an EHI score 0.94 points lower. The bias-corrected 95% CI for the indirect component through WHO-5 included zero. Associations were modest; the EHI estimate warrants cautious interpretation because internal consistency was low (Cronbach's α = 0.56). Concurrent measurement does not establish temporal ordering or causality.
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.