Table 3c. Feasibility, Process, and Impact Results of Interventions on Prepared-Food Sources: Interventions Conducted in Small Local Restaurants^a .

Characteristic	Shape Up Somerville (32–36)	Smart Menu Program (37,38)	The Healthy Options Program (39–42)
Feasibility and process results	Low acceptability; medium reach	High acceptability; low feasibility; low reach; low operability	Moderate acceptability of promoted items; high fidelity; high feasibility
Prepared-food source impact results	4/10 Restaurants changed menus; 6/10 reported customers ordering from Shape Up Somerville options; 7/10 believed beneficial to participate; 7/10 were more aware of nutrition; 4/10 thought customers were more aware of nutrition	Fewer average calories, lower levels of fat and sodium per entrée sold	No significant change in ordering
Consumer psychosocial impact results	Not assessed at restaurant level	High level of awareness; no impact on knowledge reported	Moderate awareness
Consumer behavioral impact results	Not assessed at restaurant level	20.4% of customers reported ordering lower calories, 16.5% lower fat	1/3 of customers reported materials influenced ordering
Other results	Body mass index among children reduced by 0.1005	Higher entrée cost associated with more calories and fat consumed; consumers chose smaller, cheaper entrées	None
Sustainability	Low-medium: more than 50% of restaurants were noncompliant at follow-up	Medium: resource-intensive intervention.	High: materials stayed in place
Policy results, implications	Needed a stronger prepared-food source component	Success for calorie-labeling policy	Possibilities for combination with other intervention strategies

^a Includes small, locally owned “mom-and-pop” establishments that include but are not limited to take-out and sit-down restaurants and restaurants that focused on specialty foods; it excludes chain restaurants.