Swansea University are funding some research with a team of nutritionists to gather more information on people who consume Huel and similar products. Our co-founder James Collier, is collaborating with them on this too. So, if you have Huel a few times a week, or even just a few times a month and have been doing so for the past three months, we’d love for you to take part in this study.
We’re looking for people who regularly enjoy Huel to help us better understand eating habits, goals, and motivations behind choosing meal replacements. If you’re interested, you’ll be asked to complete a 20-minute online survey to share your experience.
To take part, you must:
Be 18 years or older
Be a UK resident
Have no history of a diagnosed eating disorder
Not be undergoing bariatric or metabolic surgery
Not be prescribed GLP-1 agonist medication (e.g. Ozempic)
As a thank you for your time, Swansea University will be entering you into a prize draw for a chance to win one of four £25 vouchers.If this sounds like something you’d be interested in, you can sign up here: Qualtrics Survey | Qualtrics Experience Management
This must be worthwhile feedback for the researchers right away, to go back and check their work. If there’s an exclusively assumptive question about how or why we eat animals, it’s a fail.
PS unless they only want to do research on omnivores, for some reason, in which case, is that made clear? Doesn’t sound like…
Gah! Was going to complete it as I’m all for research but I have a history of an eating disorder . Do you know why this would be a problem? (Just curious to know)
There must be lots of people with undiagnosed yet untrivial eating disorders, but they can be included in the research; so it’s not the disorder which excludes people, it’s having gone to the doctor about it. Access to healthcare is an issue the research probably doesn’t want to address, but they’ve done so anyway and it’ll skew their results
Maybe asking respondents to self-diagnose would be more helpful.
These also did not apply to me as I do not consume animal products, however this is what the middle option ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ is for. There are questions specifically about animal product use later anyway, as well as the initial dietary preference at the start and free text fields later to clarify this further if desired. Ultimately, the collection and analysis of overall useful research data is a far better outcome than having no response at all due to apprehension over a couple questions comprising 1% approx of the survey.
This can be a normal part of surveys implementing the Likert scale, as it checks the respondent’s attention and consistency. For example, it’s useful to identify problematic or behaviourally inconsistent responses that muddy the research, such as a respondent speeding through it by always choosing the furthest option to the right for every question just to enter the competition.
‘Neither agree nor disagree’ indicates ambivalence, not irrelevance. Since the questions are irrelevant to some, the required option would be ‘not applicable’, or words to that effect.
One more thought: I’m reluctant to begin online questionnaires in which one question has to be completed before the next becomes visible. It’s like being led by the nose; at worst it feels manipulative..
In order to feel comfortable with committing to a series of questions involving personal information, isn’t it reasonable to be able to review the whole questionnaire before beginning?
It’s a waste of time to begin answering questions (over say 15 or 20 minutes) before coming across one that’s so poorly composed as to be unanswerable, or so intrusive as to be objectionable, and to then abandon the whole thing.
In other words, your researchers might find the response is better if they provided a PDF of the questionnaire at the outset.
Thanks for your feedback so far. I’ve spoken with the lead researcher and please note the following:
The wording of some of the questions has been changed. This includes a ‘not applicable’ option added where relevent, or a ‘just leave blank’ option (to address, for example, the animal crulity point).
The reason that some questions seem repetative is intentional. This is a validated questionnaire that’s been tried and tested. The objective is to hone in on people’s true feelings.
If 30 minutes is off-putting, please note that the average response time is just 18 minutes (the opening post has been changed to 20 minutes to relect this).
Within academic surveys it’s now standard practice to use prize-draw incentives rather than paid completion which is seem as bribary or coertion. Usually one voucher of £25 per 200 responses if offered, whereas this survey is offering 4 x £25 voucers for 123 responses.
We now have a different survey link for the survey (it’s been changed in the opening post).
Thanks, all. We really appreciate you helping us out with this!
There must be lots of people with undiagnosed yet untrivial eating disorders, but they can be included in the research; so it’s not the disorder which excludes people, it’s having gone to the doctor about it.
From an ethics standpoint, we are required to protect participants and avoid causing harm. Since the questions involve food and eating behaviours, we aim to minimise potential triggers for individuals who may find the questions distressing, particularly those with a diagnosed eating disorder. Therefore, as a requirement from the ethics committee, we must task in our consent form.
We also acknowledge that many people may have undiagnosed eating disorders, which we cannot always identify or control for. However, participation is entirely up to the individual, and they are free to choose whether or not to engage.
Oh yes, of course safeguarding is important. People with diagnosed eating disorders shouldn’t participate in a survey which might distress or disturb them.
I was thinking about it from the perspective of the research. It might be useful if those who believe they have undiagnosed eating disorders self-identified for the purposes of the survey.
Also, if the survey risks triggering people with eating disorders, whilst it’s wise to exclude those who have been diagnosed, it might also be prudent to issue an early warning to those who feel they have undiagnosed disorders and who might otherwise participate and put themselves at risk.
. Do you know why this would be a problem? (Just curious to know)