Back

Public Knowledge, Barriers And Facilitators To UK Dietary Guideline Adherence: A Nationally Representative Survey

Griffiths, A.; Austin, K.; Cronin, K.; Matu, J.; Gregory, S.; Ells, L.; Shannon, O. M.

2026-04-28 nutrition
10.64898/2026.04.27.26351827 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAdherence to UK dietary guidelines is poor, yet no evidence exists regarding population-level knowledge of these guidelines, or the barriers and facilitators to adherence. This study aimed to characterise knowledge of UK dietary guidelines and perceived barriers and facilitators to adherence in a nationally representative UK sample. MethodsA cross-sectional survey was administered to 1003 adults recruited via Prolific, matched to the UK population by age, sex, and ethnicity. A 22-item knowledge questionnaire assessed awareness of the Eatwell Guide and broader Dietary Reference Values (DRVs), with both strict and liberal scoring applied. Perceived barriers and facilitators to adherence were assessed using custom questionnaire items informed by the COM-B model and TDF framework. ResultsKnowledge of Eatwell Guide recommendations was moderate under strict scoring (53.3%) and improved under liberal scoring (72.5%), despite nearly half of participants reporting no familiarity with the Eatwell Guide. Knowledge of broader DRVs was poor using strict scoring (17.9%) but moderate with liberal scoring (58.9%). The most commonly reported barriers were social (e.g. celebrations), environmental (e.g. access to unhealthy foods), and psychological (e.g., mood). The most strongly endorsed facilitators were economic (e.g. cheaper healthy foods) and health-related (e.g. motivated by weight and mental health). ConclusionsThese findings suggest that whilst knowledge of UK dietary guidelines is reasonable, individualised behaviour change approaches alone are unlikely to be sufficient. Meaningful population-level improvements will require complementary structural changes to the food environment.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.5%
2
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.7%
3
The Journal of Nutrition
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
5
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.9%
6
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
7
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
8
Current Developments in Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.4%
9
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
10
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
11
Appetite
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.4%
13
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
14
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
15
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
17
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
18
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
19
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
Food & Function
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
22
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%