58
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices

      review-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Health-related claims are statements regarding the nutritional content of a food (nutrition claims) and/or indicate that a relationship exists between a food and a health outcome (health claims). Their impact on food purchasing or consumption decisions is unclear. This systematic review measured the effect of health-related claims, on pre-packaged foods in retail settings, on adult purchasing decisions (real and perceived).

          Methods

          In September 2016, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CAB abstracts, Business Source Complete, and Web of Science/Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index for articles in English published in peer-review journals. Studies were included if they were controlled experiments where the experimental group(s) included a health-related claim and the control group involved an identical product without a health-related claim. Included studies measured (at an individual or population level); actual or intended choice, purchases, and/or consumption. The primary outcome was product choices and purchases, the secondary outcome was food consumption and preference. Results were standardised through calculating odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the likelihood of choosing a product when a health-related claim was present. Results were combined in a random-effects meta-analysis.

          Results

          Thirty-one papers were identified, 17 of which were included for meta-analyses. Most studies were conducted in Europe ( n = 17) and the USA ( n = 7). Identified studies were choice experiments that measured the likelihood of a product being chosen when a claim was present compared to when a claim was not present, ( n = 16), 15 studies were experiments that measured either; intent-rating scale outcomes ( n = 8), consumption ( n = 6), a combination of the two ( n = 1), or purchase data ( n = 1). Overall, 20 studies found that claims increase purchasing and/or consumption, eight studies had mixed results, and two studies found consumption/purchasing reductions. The meta-analyses of 17 studies found that health-related claims increase consumption and/or purchasing (OR 1.75, CI 1.60–1.91).

          Conclusion

          Health-related claims have a substantial effect on dietary choices. However, this finding is based on research mostly conducted in artificial settings. Findings from natural experiments have yielded smaller effects. Further research is needed to assess effects of claims in real-world settings.

          Trial registration

          PROSPERO systematic review registration number: CRD42016044042.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0548-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The science on front-of-package food labels.

          The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Institute of Medicine are currently investigating front-of-package (FOP) food labelling systems to provide science-based guidance to the food industry. The present paper reviews the literature on FOP labelling and supermarket shelf-labelling systems published or under review by February 2011 to inform current investigations and identify areas of future research. A structured search was undertaken of research studies on consumer use, understanding of, preference for, perception of and behaviours relating to FOP/shelf labelling published between January 2004 and February 2011. Twenty-eight studies from a structured search met inclusion criteria. Reviewed studies examined consumer preferences, understanding and use of different labelling systems as well as label impact on purchasing patterns and industry product reformulation. The findings indicate that the Multiple Traffic Light system has most consistently helped consumers identify healthier products; however, additional research on different labelling systems' abilities to influence consumer behaviour is needed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Can “Low-Fat” Nutrition Labels Lead to Obesity?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Biasing Health Halos of Fast-Food Restaurant Health Claims: Lower Calorie Estimates and Higher Side-Dish Consumption Intentions

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44 1865 289245 , Asha.Kaur@dph.ox.ac.uk
                +44 1865 289248 , Peter.Scarborough@dph.ox.ac.uk
                +44 1865 289244 , Mike.Rayner@dph.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
                Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
                The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
                BioMed Central (London )
                1479-5868
                11 July 2017
                11 July 2017
                2017
                : 14
                : 93
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, GRID grid.4991.5, Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, , Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, ; Oxford, England
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0617-2287
                Article
                548
                10.1186/s12966-017-0548-1
                5505045
                51d924a8-1b5d-4dff-b436-7e098b1856de
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 13 February 2017
                : 3 July 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004963, Seventh Framework Programme;
                Award ID: 311963
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000274, British Heart Foundation;
                Award ID: 006/PSS/CORE/2016/OXFORD
                Award ID: FS/15/34/31656
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Nutrition & Dietetics
                health claims,nutrition claims,food labelling,food choices
                Nutrition & Dietetics
                health claims, nutrition claims, food labelling, food choices

                Comments

                Comment on this article