Table 1.
Secondary studies included in the umbrella review.
| Author (Year) | Number of Primary Surveys | Number of Participants | Type of Primary Research | Type of Intervention | Type of Review | Quality Assessment of Primary Research (Yes/No; Name of Tool) | AMSTAR2 Evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allan et al. (2017) [15] | 22 | N/A * | RCTs, Quasi-experiments | Behavioural | Systematic review | Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool | Low |
| Anderson et al. (2009) [29] | 47 | 76,941 ** | RCTs, Quasi-experiments, Observational studies | Mixed | Systematic review and meta-analysis | Community Guide | Moderate |
| Brown et al. (2018) [30] | 22 | 35,197 | RCTs, Quasi-experiments, Observational studies | Behavioural | Systematic review | Cochrane criteria | Low |
| Cabrera et al. (2021) [18] | 13 | 5423 | RCTs, Quasi-experiments | Mixed | Systematic review and meta-analysis | Not specified | Low |
| Fitzpatrick-Lewis et al. (2022) [31] | 5 | 1494 | RCTs, Observational studies | Mixed | Systematic review and meta-analysis | Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 tool | Low |
| Geaney et al. (2013) [16] | 6 | N/A * | RCTs, Quasi-experiments | Behavioural | Systematic review | Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool | Low |
| Ghobadi et al. (2022) [32] | 8 | 1797 | RCTs | Mixed | Systematic review | Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool | Low |
| Groeneveld et al. (2010) [33] | 31 | 16,013 | RCTs, Quasi-experiments | Mixed | Systematic review | Delhi list based tool | Low |
| Gudzune et al. (2013) [34] | 9 | 76,465 ** | RCTs, Quasi-experiments | Mixed | Systematic review | Downs and Black methodological quality assessment checklist |
Low |
| Hendren et al. (2017) [19] | 18 | 37,744 | RCTs | Mixed | Systematic review | Quality characteristics and bias criteria were adapted from two previously published systematic reviews | Low |
| Lee et al. (2022) [20] | 11 | 13,233 | RCTs | Mixed | Systematic review | The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Randomised Controlled Trials | Low |
| Madden et al. (2020) [35] | 20 | 3311 | RCTs, Quasi-experiments | Mixed | Systematic review | Cochrane Risk of Bias, ROBINS-I (risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions) | Low |
| Ni Mhurchu et al. (2010) [36] | 16 | N/A * | RCTs, Quasi-experiments | Mixed | Systematic review | A checklist adapted from a previous review | Low |
| Park et al. (2019) [37] | 7 | 2854 | RCTs | Behavioural | Systematic review and meta-analysis | Cochrane’s Risk of Bias | Low |
| Sandercock et al. (2018) [38] | 23 | 41,867 | RCTs, Quasi-experiments, Observational studies | Mixed | Systematic review | Quality Criteria Checklist from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) Evidence Analysis Manual | Low |
| Sawada et al. (2019) [17] | 3 | 3013 | RCTs | Behavioural | Systematic review | GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) | Low |
N/A—Not Applicable; RCTs—Randomised Controlled Trials; AMSTAR2—Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (version 2). * In some studies, the number of participants is not given, as the study was conducted in cafeterias; the intervention involved a change in products offered in vending machines, making it significantly difficult or impossible to determine the number of participants; or the number of participants is not given **—WHO review.