4.3 Article

A survey of Chinese consumers' knowledge, beliefs and behavioural intentions regarding salt intake and salt reduction

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 1450-1459

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980019003689

关键词

Salt; Salt reduction; China; Consumer survey; Public opinion

资金

  1. China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment (CFSA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Globally, China is among the 'saltiest' nations. In order to support current nationwide salt reduction initiatives, we investigated Chinese consumers' knowledge, beliefs and behaviours related to salt intake and salt reduction. Design: A cross-sectional face-to-face survey was carried out, focusing on salt knowledge, beliefs and behaviours related to salt intake and salt reduction, perceptions of salt reduction responsibility and support for different national strategies. Setting: The survey was carried out in China mainland. Participants: Consumers (n 2444) from six of seven major geographical regions in China participated in the survey. After data cleaning, a sample of 2430 was included in the final analysis. Results: A majority of Chinese consumers believed that salt added during home cooking was the biggest contributor to their salt intake. Knowledge gaps existed in the awareness of salt hidden in certain foods and flavouring products. Chinese consumers in general were interested in lowering their salt intake. They were aware of salt reduction tools, but the adoption level was low. Consumers expressed strong support for promotion of salt-restriction spoons and public education, but not fiscal policies (e.g. salt-related tax or subsidies). In terms of individual differences, education status demonstrated a substantial impact on salt reduction knowledge and behaviour. Conclusions: There is still big room to 'shake' Chinese consumers' salt habit. The present study provides important evidence and consumer insights to support China's efforts to meet its salt reduction targets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据