Qualitative menu labelling in university restaurants and its influence on food choices: A systematic review and synthesis without meta-analysis.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Natalia Fogolari, Aretusa D Souza, Greyce L Bernardo, Paula L Uggioni, Renata C Oliveira, Vanessa M Rodrigues, Rossana P C Proença, Ana C Fernandes
{"title":"Qualitative menu labelling in university restaurants and its influence on food choices: A systematic review and synthesis without meta-analysis.","authors":"Natalia Fogolari,&nbsp;Aretusa D Souza,&nbsp;Greyce L Bernardo,&nbsp;Paula L Uggioni,&nbsp;Renata C Oliveira,&nbsp;Vanessa M Rodrigues,&nbsp;Rossana P C Proença,&nbsp;Ana C Fernandes","doi":"10.1111/nbu.12612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Qualitative menu labelling can be defined as descriptive or non-numerical interpretive labels (e.g. traffic light labelling, healthy food symbols, messages or ingredient lists). Qualitative information seems to have a positive influence on consumers' food choices, particularly in institutional food service establishments, such as in universities. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the influence of different formats of qualitative menu labelling on food choices in university restaurants. This systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) and conducted vote counting of studies based on the direction of effect. Studies were retrieved from Cochrane Library, Scopus, MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO and Web of Science databases and reference lists of selected articles. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies were included. Two independent researchers searched and extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. From the initial search (460 records), four papers were selected, plus one paper identified in a previous study and a further six from an update search, totalling 11 included studies, reporting 14 different interventions (n = 499 174). Types of interventions included the use of symbols and the inclusion of traffic light labelling. Outcomes of interest were food choice, expressed as mean, median or percent healthy food choices or purchases. Qualitative menu labels increased healthy food choices and/or purchase behaviour, with 10 of 12 interventions favouring the intervention (83%; 95%CI 55-95%; p = 0.0386). Most of the studies favouring the intervention used healthy food symbols for healthier foods or food components, alone or in association with another intervention and were of moderate and weak quality. These findings may serve as a basis for the implementation of nutrition information policies in university restaurants.</p>","PeriodicalId":48536,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition Bulletin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12612","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Qualitative menu labelling can be defined as descriptive or non-numerical interpretive labels (e.g. traffic light labelling, healthy food symbols, messages or ingredient lists). Qualitative information seems to have a positive influence on consumers' food choices, particularly in institutional food service establishments, such as in universities. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the influence of different formats of qualitative menu labelling on food choices in university restaurants. This systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) and conducted vote counting of studies based on the direction of effect. Studies were retrieved from Cochrane Library, Scopus, MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO and Web of Science databases and reference lists of selected articles. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies were included. Two independent researchers searched and extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. From the initial search (460 records), four papers were selected, plus one paper identified in a previous study and a further six from an update search, totalling 11 included studies, reporting 14 different interventions (n = 499 174). Types of interventions included the use of symbols and the inclusion of traffic light labelling. Outcomes of interest were food choice, expressed as mean, median or percent healthy food choices or purchases. Qualitative menu labels increased healthy food choices and/or purchase behaviour, with 10 of 12 interventions favouring the intervention (83%; 95%CI 55-95%; p = 0.0386). Most of the studies favouring the intervention used healthy food symbols for healthier foods or food components, alone or in association with another intervention and were of moderate and weak quality. These findings may serve as a basis for the implementation of nutrition information policies in university restaurants.

大学餐厅的定性菜单标签及其对食物选择的影响:一项没有荟萃分析的系统综述和综合。
定性菜单标签可定义为描述性或非数字解释性标签(例如交通灯标签、健康食品符号、信息或成分表)。定性信息似乎对消费者的食品选择有积极的影响,特别是在机构食品服务机构,如大学。本系统综述的目的是评估不同格式的定性菜单标签对大学餐厅食物选择的影响。本系统评价以系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)和不含荟萃分析的综合(SWiM)为指导,并根据效应方向对研究进行计票。研究从Cochrane Library、Scopus、MEDLINE、LILACS、SciELO和Web of Science数据库和选定文章的参考文献列表中检索。包括实验和准实验研究。两名独立研究人员检索和提取数据,并使用有效公共卫生实践项目(EPHPP)定量研究质量评估工具评估方法学质量。从最初的检索(460条记录)中,选择了4篇论文,加上在先前研究中确定的1篇论文和从更新检索中确定的另外6篇论文,总共纳入了11项研究,报告了14种不同的干预措施(n = 499 174)。干预措施的类型包括使用符号和交通灯标签。感兴趣的结果是食物选择,以健康食品选择或购买的平均值、中位数或百分比表示。定性菜单标签增加了健康食品的选择和/或购买行为,12项干预措施中有10项支持干预措施(83%;95%可信区间55 - 95%;p = 0.0386)。大多数支持干预的研究使用健康食品符号来表示更健康的食品或食品成分,单独或与另一种干预相结合,并且质量中等和较弱。这些发现可以作为在大学餐厅实施营养信息政策的依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nutrition Bulletin
Nutrition Bulletin NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
12.10%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The Nutrition Bulletin provides accessible reviews at the cutting edge of research. Read by researchers and nutritionists working in universities and research institutes; public health nutritionists, dieticians and other health professionals; nutritionists, technologists and others in the food industry; those engaged in higher education including students; and journalists with an interest in nutrition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信