Table 2a. Evaluation Methods Used by Interventions on Prepared-Food Sources, by Type of Intervention: Interventions Conducted in Specialty Restaurants^a .

Characteristic	Baltimore Healthy Carryouts (15–23)	Good for You (24)	Steps to a Healthier Salinas (25,26)	Horgen and Brownell 2002 (27)
Study design	Experimental design; pre–post assessment (n = 8)	Nonexperimental; pre–post sales analysis, broken down by quarter (n = 7)	Nonexperimental; no pre–post assessment; intervention trial, voluntary participation; no comparison group (n = 16)	Nonexperimental; pre–post assessment (n = 1)
Feasibility assessment measuresb	Informal observation; staff reports; interviews with carryout owners or staff	Launched simultaneously in all Target Food Avenue restaurants; not assessed at individual store level	Assessments, discussion with health educators	Informal visits, daily check-in
Process evaluation measuresc	Direct observation	None	Surveys with store owners; informal observation	Informal visits, daily check-in
Prepared-food source impact measures	Sales	Sales	None	Sales
Consumer impact measuresd	Purchasing; awareness; self-reported body mass index	None	Modified Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System	Behavior

^a Includes restaurants, such as carryouts, taquerias, and delicatessen cafés, that focused on specialty foods; it excludes chain fast-food restaurants.

^b Feasibility assessment measures include acceptability, operability, and perceived sustainability.

^c Process evaluation measures include dose, reach, and fidelity, which indicate how well the program was implemented according to plan.

^d Consumer impact measures included psychosocial, behavioral, and health outcomes.