Table 1.
Studies reporting changes in nutrition knowledge and dietary behaviours in adults.
| First Author, Year, Country | Target Population | Study Design, Risk of Bias | Description of Portion Control Plate | Key Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amaro 2017 [49] USA |
Latinas (grocery shopping) | Quasi-experimental, Low |
2D MyPlate diagram: 1/2 plate FV, 1/4 plate of grains, 1/4 plate of protein, and 1 serve of dairy. | ↑ Knowledge, self-efficacy, and behaviour related to food purchasing. These were maintained for 2 months in a convenience sample of Latinas who viewed videos based on MyPlate. |
| Bachman 2016 [44] USA |
Adults 18–65 y | RCT-Crossover, High |
2D MyPlate diagram: 1/2 plate FV, 1/4 plate of grains, 1/4 plate of protein, and 1 serve of dairy. | Meals planned using MyPlate ↓ in total energy, grains, and dairy, and significantly ↑ in FV compared to the 2010 Dietary guidelines. |
| Blondin 2018 [50] USA |
Pregnant women | Quasi-experimental, Low |
2D MyPlate diagram: 1/2 plate of FV, 1/4 plate of grains, 1/4 plate of protein, and 1 serve of dairy. | ↑ Nutrition knowledge by 17% in pregnant women following the nutrition education session (including the MyPlate guidelines). |
| Brown 2014 [52] USA |
University students | Quasi-experimental, High |
2D MyPlate diagram: 1/2 plate FV, 1/4 plate of grains, 1/4 plate of protein, and 1 serve of dairy. | The intervention group saw ↑ in fruit consumption and showed trend towards ↑ vegetable consumption, compared with the control group. |
| Hughes 2017 [46] USA |
General population | Study 1: RCT-Crossover, High |
3D Portion control plate: a 25 cm foam plastic plate with a border of 2 cm, had serving size indicators for FV, grains/starches, and protein. | The self-selected portion size of protein was ↓ on the portion control plate compared to the regular plate. No significant difference was observed for grains and vegetables. |
| General population | Study 2: RCT-Crossover, two studies assessing lunch quality were conducted over three days, High |
3D Portion control plate: a 25 cm foam plastic plate with a border of 2 cm, had serving size indicators for FV, grains/starches, and protein. | The self-selected portion sizes of protein, vegetables, and grains were ↓ on the portion control plate compared to the regular plate. | |
| Lara 2015 [56] UK |
Older adults age >50 y | Cross-sectional, Low |
2D Eatwell plate diagram: 5 portions of FV, 1/3 daily food starchy foods, some dairy, some protein sources, and small amounts of foods and drinks high in fat and sugar. | British older adults rated the plate as comprehensible graphic displays of Mediterranean diet guidelines. |
| Nydahl 1993 [58] Sweden |
Health professionals | Cross-sectional, High |
2D Plate model: plate divided into 3 sections; smallest part (1/4 plate) represents proteins, other two parts are equal size, representing FV and starch. | Plate tool favourably received by majority of participants. Perceived advantages: simple, concrete tool, easy to use, useful for many populations, message easy to understand and memorise. Disadvantages: not appropriate for elderly, difficult to (a) follow amounts shown on plate, (b) to eat such large amounts of vegetables. |
| Tagtow 2017 [59] USA |
General population aged over 16 | Cross-sectional, High |
2D MyPlate diagram: 1/2 plate of FV, 1/4 plate of grains, 1/4 plate of protein, and 1 serve of dairy. | Familiarity with MyPlate appears to be positively correlated with self-perceived diet quality. Familiarity with MyPlate is positively associated with using nutrition information on the menu while ordering foods. |
| Wansink 2013 [60] USA |
Adult women (≥2 children at home) | Cross-sectional, High |
2D MyPlate diagram: 1/2 plate of FV, 1/4 plate of grains, 1/4 plate of protein, and 1 serve of dairy. | Early MyPlate adopters found it clear and easy to use, MyPlate familiarity was highest among those who found it easy to understand and who were also familiar with MyPyramid. |
FV = fruits and vegetables.