Understanding Consumer Evaluations of Personalised Nutrition Services in Terms of the Privacy Calculus: A Qualitative Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Personalised nutrition (PN) may provide major health benefits to consumers. A potential barrier to the uptake of PN is consumers' reluctance to disclose sensitive information upon which PN is based. This study adopts the privacy calculus to explore how PN service attributes contribute to consumers' privacy risk and personalisation benefit perceptions. METHODS: Sixteen focus groups (n = 124) were held in 8 EU countries and discussed 9 PN services that differed in terms of personal information, communication channel, service provider, advice justification, scope, frequency, and customer lock-in. Transcripts were content analysed. RESULTS: The personal information that underpinned PN contributed to both privacy risk perception and personalisation benefit perception. Disclosing information face-to-face mitigated the perception of privacy risk and amplified the perception of personalisation benefit. PN provided by a qualified expert and justified by scientific evidence increased participants' value perception. Enhancing convenience, offering regular face-to face support, and employing customer lock-in strategies were perceived as beneficial. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that to encourage consumer adoption, PN has to account for face-to-face communication, expert advice providers, support, a lifestyle-change focus, and customised offers. The results provide an initial insight into service attributes that influence consumer adoption of PN.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it