Menu labeling and portion size control to improve the out-of-home food environment: A scoping review

Kathiresan Jeyashree, Rizwan S. Abdulkader, Madhumitha Haridoss, Ranjithkumar Govindaraju, Amanda Brand, Marianne Visser, Sarah Gordon, Hemant Tiwari, T. S. Sumitha, Krupa Chandran, Denny Mabetha, Solange Durão
{"title":"Menu labeling and portion size control to improve the out-of-home food environment: A scoping review","authors":"Kathiresan Jeyashree,&nbsp;Rizwan S. Abdulkader,&nbsp;Madhumitha Haridoss,&nbsp;Ranjithkumar Govindaraju,&nbsp;Amanda Brand,&nbsp;Marianne Visser,&nbsp;Sarah Gordon,&nbsp;Hemant Tiwari,&nbsp;T. S. Sumitha,&nbsp;Krupa Chandran,&nbsp;Denny Mabetha,&nbsp;Solange Durão","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Menu labeling and portion size control interventions may be effective strategies to mitigate the health risks posed by the out-of-home food environment. We conducted this scoping review to map the body of evidence (BoE) addressing the effects of menu labeling and portion size control interventions in the out-of-home food environment and to summarize the research gaps in this evidence base.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched PubMed, Embase, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO in phase 1 for systematic reviews (SRs) and PubMed and Embase in phase 2 for primary studies in areas with insufficient SR evidence. We used a comprehensive search strategy without any restrictions on publication date, language, study population characteristics or outcomes. We screened all titles independently and in duplicate. We mapped the number of systematic reviews providing evidence per intervention-setting combination in a matrix. The gaps in the matrix informed the searches for primary studies in phase 2. For the included SR protocols and primary studies, we charted the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, period, and study design to facilitate their evaluation and inclusion in future evidence syntheses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We included 69 completed SRs; 37 on menu labeling, 9 on portion size control, and 23 on both. The types of menu labeling interventions studied were quantitative nutrient information (74%), interpretational guidance (48%), or contextual guidance (13%). Most reviews were from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Most SRs included studies in establishments like cafeterias (51%) or restaurants (39%) and measured change in the quantity of food offered/ordered/consumed (96%). Phase 2 search yielded 24 primary studies; 16 experimental, 6 quasi-experimental, and 2 observational studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The BoE on the effectiveness of menu labeling and portion size control is predominantly from the developed world, on nutrient information labeling and reporting impact on consumer food choice. There is a need for studies in the online environment and reporting distal health outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12039","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Menu labeling and portion size control interventions may be effective strategies to mitigate the health risks posed by the out-of-home food environment. We conducted this scoping review to map the body of evidence (BoE) addressing the effects of menu labeling and portion size control interventions in the out-of-home food environment and to summarize the research gaps in this evidence base.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO in phase 1 for systematic reviews (SRs) and PubMed and Embase in phase 2 for primary studies in areas with insufficient SR evidence. We used a comprehensive search strategy without any restrictions on publication date, language, study population characteristics or outcomes. We screened all titles independently and in duplicate. We mapped the number of systematic reviews providing evidence per intervention-setting combination in a matrix. The gaps in the matrix informed the searches for primary studies in phase 2. For the included SR protocols and primary studies, we charted the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, period, and study design to facilitate their evaluation and inclusion in future evidence syntheses.

Results

We included 69 completed SRs; 37 on menu labeling, 9 on portion size control, and 23 on both. The types of menu labeling interventions studied were quantitative nutrient information (74%), interpretational guidance (48%), or contextual guidance (13%). Most reviews were from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Most SRs included studies in establishments like cafeterias (51%) or restaurants (39%) and measured change in the quantity of food offered/ordered/consumed (96%). Phase 2 search yielded 24 primary studies; 16 experimental, 6 quasi-experimental, and 2 observational studies.

Conclusion

The BoE on the effectiveness of menu labeling and portion size control is predominantly from the developed world, on nutrient information labeling and reporting impact on consumer food choice. There is a need for studies in the online environment and reporting distal health outcomes.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
菜单标签和份量控制,改善户外食品环境:范围审查
背景 菜单标签和份量控制干预措施可能是减轻家庭外食品环境所带来的健康风险的有效策略。我们进行了此次范围界定综述,以绘制出针对家庭外食品环境中菜单标签和份量控制干预措施效果的证据库(BoE),并总结出该证据库中的研究空白。 方法 我们在第一阶段检索了 PubMed、Embase、Epistemonikos 和 PROSPERO 中的系统综述 (SR),在第二阶段检索了 PubMed 和 Embase 中 SR 证据不足领域的主要研究。我们采用了全面的检索策略,对发表日期、语言、研究人群特征或结果没有任何限制。我们对所有标题进行了独立、重复的筛选。我们将提供每种干预-设置组合证据的系统综述数量绘制成矩阵。矩阵中的空白为第二阶段主要研究的检索提供了依据。对于纳入的SR协议和主要研究,我们将人群、干预措施、比较者、结果、时间和研究设计绘制成图表,以便于对其进行评估并纳入未来的证据综合中。 结果 我们纳入了 69 项已完成的研究报告;其中 37 项关于菜单标示,9 项关于份量控制,23 项关于两者。所研究的菜单标签干预类型包括定量营养信息(74%)、解释性指导(48%)或情境指导(13%)。大多数综述来自美国、英国和加拿大。大多数研究报告纳入了在自助餐厅(51%)或餐馆(39%)等场所进行的研究,并测量了提供/订购/消费的食物数量的变化(96%)。第二阶段的搜索结果包括 24 项主要研究;16 项实验研究、6 项准实验研究和 2 项观察研究。 结论 关于菜单标签和份量控制效果的博易彩票主要来自发达国家,涉及营养信息标签和报告对消费者食品选择的影响。有必要对在线环境和报告远端健康结果进行研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency Issue Information “Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1