Do differences in narrative approach; hedonic language vs. scientific language, influence public perception and opinion of Nutrition and food consumption? Our study investigated this question using qualitative research via Focus Group (FG). The stimulus films and subsequent meals exemplified hedonic language and biomedical language respectively. The FG was chosen to elucidate alternative narrative tools for further research and public health communication. Five sessions were held over 4 weeks with 8–10 non-repeating participants at each session. Film clips were viewed in a dining room environment and food served in buffet style after viewing. 47 people participated in the focus groups (15 males, and 32 females [ages 18–78]). Recruitment was by social media, local news outlets, word of mouth, and printed material and followed up via email. Study eligibility included self-identifying as primary food provider/cook, being over eighteen years old, and providing informed consent. Qualitative content analysis and grounded theory was used for coding and analysis. Interpretive reading of the transcript identified manifest and latent content before a coding frame was arrived at based on the frequency of relevant categories. Cross-coding was undertaken and patterns identified according to our primary research question. Communication disparities suggested by previous research were confirmed in our findings with participants emphasizing that the personal impact of hedonic and psychosocial narrative on their personal food experience held greater weight than the ‘health’ narrative alone. We conclude that scientific nutrition communication paradigms are less effective than emotional narrative that engages passion, memory and deep feeling. The findings support a move towards nutrition communication strategies that incorporate wider human emotional experience through gastronomic narratives. Abstract

中文翻译：

---

健康与享乐主义：营养科学的公共传播

在叙述方式上有所不同；享乐主义语言与科学语言，是否会影响公众对营养和食物消费的看法和看法？我们的研究使用焦点小组（FG）的定性研究调查了这个问题。刺激影片和随后的进餐分别例举享乐语言和生物医学语言。选择FG是为了阐明进一步的研究和公共卫生交流的替代性叙事工具。在4周内举行了5次会议，每节会议有8-10位非重复参与者。在餐厅环境中观看了影片剪辑，观看后以自助餐形式提供食物。有47人参加了焦点小组讨论（15位男性和32位女性[18-78岁]）。招聘是通过社交媒体，当地新闻媒体，口口相传和印刷材料进行的，随后通过电子邮件进行了跟进。研究资格包括自我识别为主要食品提供者/厨师，已满18岁并提供知情同意。定性内容分析和扎根理论用于编码和分析。根据相关类别的频率，在到达编码帧之前，对识别出的清单和隐含内容的成绩单进行解释性阅读。根据我们的主要研究问题，进行了交叉编码并确定了模式。我们的发现证实了先前研究建议的沟通差异，参与者强调享乐和心理社会叙事对他们个人饮食经历的个人影响比单独的“健康”叙事具有更大的分量。我们得出的结论是，科学的营养交流范式要比情感叙事的激情，记忆和深刻情感的效果差。这些发现支持向营养交流策略的转变，该策略通过美食叙事融合了更广泛的人类情感体验。抽象