메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
이선영 (충남대 식품영양학과) 강혜경 (우송대 응용식품영양학부) 양일선 (연세대학교 식품영양전공) 강명희 (한남대 식품영양학과)
저널정보
대한영양사협회 대한영양사협회 학술지 대한영양사협회 학술지 제10권 제2호
발행연도
2004.1
수록면
224 - 234 (11page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
232 internet sites in Yahoo and Empas were monitored to analyze what good contents of nutrition information on line have for the internet searchers. As the sites on line were disappeared frequently, all the monitored sites were selected on April 25, 2003. 3 disciplined personnels analyzed the contents of the selected sites by using self-developed monitoring format. The results are as follows. Most of sites were administered by the marketing companies and only 8% by public institutions, associations and school. Especially, most of the contents of the sites by marketing companies were advertisement about their goods instead of nutrition information. Only 42.6% of sites indicated the sources of nutrition information. Only 10.3% of site administrators responded about on-line questions quickly within 1 day. Moreover, 46% of sites were not conformed their answering periods. On the other hand, 94.8% of sites offered more than 1 feedback methods. Monitors checked purposes offering on-line informations plurally. Leading purpose was for advertising and marketing their goods(59.5%) and 47% of them were opened for offering food and nutrition information. They offered various informations at the same time. More than half of the sites had the menus for food and nutrition information and connected sites, but the other half of them only advertised their own goods. Positive sides from monitored informations were as follows : 'communicating informations easily' (8.7%) / 'definite informations for daily living' (7.2%) / 'beneficial informations for nutritional management' (4.6%) / 'new informations' (2.1%). Negative sides of offered information were ‘not enough to give scientific basis and/or to simplify special evidences too much’(60.8%) / ‘to exaggerate the contents’ (41.4%) / ‘not to indicate the notice of side effect and/or to advertise that there are not side effect from using their goods’ (34.1%).

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0