Table 5.
Description of included nutrition education/messages studies
| Reference | Study aims | Intervention type, comparator and duration | Outcome measurement | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sichieri R, 2008 Brazil |
To determine whether an educational programme aimed at discouraging students from drinking sugar-sweetened beverages could prevent excessive weight gain. Ages: 9–12 yrs Total n completed = 1140 |
RCT for 7 months. 1) Healthy lifestyle education programme: Simple messages encouraging water consumption instead of sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages, plus 10 × 1-hour sessions of activities facilitated by four trained research assistants: 20–30 min where teachers were encouraged to reiterate the message during their lesson. 2) 2 × 1-hour general sessions on health issues and printed general advices regarding healthy diets. |
1 × 24 h recall | 1) NS mean (95 % CI) change in weight or BMI between intervention and control (Δ: weight 2.8 (2.5, 3.2) kg vs. 2.8 (2.6, 3.0) kg; Δ BMI: 0.32 (0.19, 0.46) kg/m2 vs. 0.22 (0.13, 0.32 kg/m2). 2) Carbonated beverage intake reduced in the intervention vs. control (mean (95 % CI: change: 269.0 (2114, 224) ml/d vs. 213 (256, 31) ml/d). 3) Fruit juice consumption NS increased in intervention group (P = 0.08). |
| Alinia S, 2011 Denmark |
1) To investigate the feasibility of using workplaces to increase the fruit consumption of participants by increasing fruit availability and accessibility by a minimal fruit programme. 2) To investigate whether a potential increase in fruit intake would affect vegetable, total energy and nutrient intake. Ages: ~46 yrs Total n completed = 5 workplaces as intervention (n = 68), 3 as control (n = 56) |
5 month, controlled, workplace study. 1) Fruit programme: Fruit basket set out in a room to which participants had free and easy access, such as the reception or the staff kitchen. At least one piece of fruit was available per participant per day. 2) Control: No free fruit. |
2 × 24 h dietary recalls | 1) Mean ± SE daily fruit consumption increased in intervention vs. control (Δ +112 ± 35 g/d vs. +10 ± 24 g/d, P = 0.021). 2) Mean ± SE intake of dietary fibre increased in intervention vs. baseline (Δ + 3.0 ± 1.1 g/d, P = 0.007), however the change in fibre intake in control was not different to baseline (Δ 0.7 ± 1.0 g/d, P > 0.05). 3) Mean ± SE intake of sugar decreased in intervention vs. baseline (Δ -10.7 ± 4.4 g/d, P = 0.019) however the decrease in sugar intake in the control group was not different to baseline (Δ -5.1 ± 4.4 g/d, P > 0.05). 4) Mean daily intakes of vegetables, total energy and macronutrients remained unchanged in the intervention group. 4) Only the change in fruit intake was significantly different between the intervention group and the control group (112 g vs. 10 g, P = 0.021). |
| Moore L, 2008 UK |
To estimate the impact of school fruit tuck shops on children’s consumption of fruit and sweet and savoury snacks. Ages: Year 5 and Year 6 children (9-11 yrs) Total n completed = 23 intervention schools (n = 921); 20 control schools (n = 691) |
Cluster randomized effectiveness trial (school as the unit of randomization). 1) Schools operated fruit tuck shops throughout one academic year. 2) No tuck shop (control schools). |
1) 1 × 24 h recall 2) 1 × 1-y follow-up questionnaire on food preferences |
1) NS in fruit intake between intervention and control from fruit at school (0.74 servings vs. 0.69 servings). 2) NS in total daily fruit intake between intervention and control (2.54 servings vs. 2.51 servings). 3) NS in consumption of other snacks between groups. 4) Schools with a ‘no food’ or ‘fruit only’ policy: less fruit consumed vs. schools with no restrictions (mean (95 % CI): 0.37 portions (0.11, 0.64) greater consumption in schools with a fruit only policy; 0.14 (-0.30, 0.58) with a no food policy, and -0.13 (-0.33, 0.07) where there were no restrictions. |
| Robinson E, 2013 UK |
To examine whether a health message and a social norm message about limiting junk food intake would motivate people to reduce their intake of high calorie snack food (a type of junk food at a snack buffet). Ages: Mean age ~23 yrs Total n completed = 39 in social norm; 48 in health, and 42 in control |
A 3 × 2 between-subjects design, with factors: message type (social norm/health/control) and usual junk food intake (low consumers/high consumers). In the social norm and health conditions, participants viewed a poster containing images of junk food (a hamburger, fries, soda, candy wrappers) and a message defining junk food: ‘junk food is high calorie food with low nutritional value. The posters only differed in the content of a message in the middle of the poster: 1) Social norm: ‘Students eat less junk food than you might realise. Most students limit how much junk food they are eating to 1 or less than 1 serving/d (based on a 2012 study). 2) Health condition: ‘Reducing junk food intake is good for your health. Limiting junk food to 1 or less than 1 serving a day is part of a healthy diet (based on a 2012 study). 3) Control: Message emphasised the importance of preparing in Ladvance for exams. |
Guided one day dietary recall measure (over 24 h) The snack buffet consisted of 6 common food items in the UK (3x high calorie snack foods, plus fruit and vegetable items) |
1) High calorie snack food consumed was lower in both the health and the social norm message condition compared with the control message condition (36 % and 28 %, both P < 0.05) social norm: 30 (21) g vs. 23 (20) g vs. 42 (38) g, P < 0.05). 2) NS for fruit and vegetable intake (social normal: 103 (74) g vs. health: 85 (58) g vs. control: 970 (63) g, P > 0.05). 3) NS for total snack intake in social norm (207 (122) kcal) but health condition decreased snack intake (165 (103) kcal vs. control: 266 (210 kcal), P < 0.05). |
BMI body mass index, CI confidence interval, n number of participants, NS not significant, RCT randomized controlled trial, SE standard error, yrs years of age