Table 3.

Characteristics of included studies.

Reference	Participants/Site	Results
RCTs
Anzman-Frasca et al., 2018 [26]	58 families with 4–8 year old children, quick-service restaurant	Placemats: ordered more healthy food compared to controls (B = −1.76, 95% CI −3.34, −0.19). No (overall) differences in dietary intake compared to control.
Cohen et al., 2015 [27]	Students 1–8 grade urban, low-income districts, school cafeteria	Fruit and vegetable selection increased in smart cafe, however smart café intervention alone had no effect on consumption.
Greene et al., 2017 [28] 9 week cluster	Ten middle schools (5–8 grade), cafeteria	Overall, fruit selection increased by 36% (p < 0.001), and fruit consumption increased by 23% (p < 0.017) in the fruit intervention group, compared to controls.
Hollands et al., 2018 [29] stepped wedge	Nine worksite cafeterias	No significant change in daily energy purchase when data from all six sites were pooled.
Vasiljevic et al., 2018 [30]	Six worksite cafeterias	No overall effect in energy purchase. One site 6.6% reduction (95% CI −12.9 to –0.3, p = 0.044) in energy purchased, however, the association diminished over time.
Velema et al., 2018 [31]	Employees	Positive effects on purchases for three of seven products
Non RCTs
Cole et al., 2018 [32]	US Army active duty soldiers, military installation	Intervention associated with increased diet quality and consumption of healthy food.
Hubbard et al., 2015 [33]	Students (n 43) 11–22 years with intellectual and developmental disabilities	Smarter lunchroom increased selection (whole grains) and consumption (whole grains, fruit) of healthy food.
Kroese et al., 2015 [34]	Travelers, train station snack shops	More healthy (but not fewer unhealthy) products were sold in both nudge conditions.
Levy et al., 2012 [35]	Employees who were regular cafeteria patrons (n = 4642)	Labeling decreased unhealthy purchases and increased healthy purchases.
Lowe et al., 2010 [36]	Employees, worksite cafeteria	Total energy intake: no difference. Dietary intake improved over study period.
Nikolaou et al., 2014 [37]	120 students, catering	Calorie-labeling associated with a 3.5 kg less weight gain.
Olstad et al., 2014 [38]	Patrons, recreational swimming pool	In the full sample, sales of healthy items did not differ across periods. In the subsample, the sale of healthy items increased by 30% when signage + taste testing was implemented (p < 0.01).
Seward et al., 2016 [39]	6 college cafeterias (Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts)	No significant changes (items served) were revealed when intervention sites were compared with controls.
Thorndike et al., 2014 [40]	Cafeteria	The traffic-light and choice architecture cafeteria intervention resulted in increased sale of healthier items over 2 years (from 41% to 46%).
Thorndike et al., 2012 [41]	Hospital cafeteria	A color-coded labeling intervention improved sales of healthy items and was enhanced by a choice architecture intervention.
Van Kleef et al., 2018 [42]	Participants at a Dutch university	Regardless of the topping, when the whole wheat bun was the default option, 94% decided to stick with the default.
Van Kleef et al., 2015 [43]	Customers in self-service restaurant during breakfast	The sales increased significant during the verbal prompts intervention periods compared to baseline.
Van Kleef et al., 2014 [44]	Children (n = 1113) primary schools in the Netherlands	Consumption of fun-shaped whole wheat bread rolls almost doubled consumption of whole wheat bread (p = 0.001).
Van Kleef et al., 2012 [45]	Students	Assortment structure led to higher sales of healthy snacks.
Vermote et al., 2018 [46]	University students and employees	Total french fries intake decreased by 9.1%, and total plate waste decreased by 66.4%. No differences in satiety or caloric intake (dietary recall) between baseline and intervention week.

RCT: Randomized Control Trials.