Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22520655›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2012

Is healthy eating for obese children necessarily more costly for families?

Jonathan Banks, Jessica Williams, Tina Cumberlidge, Tânia Cimonetti, Deborah J Sharp, Julian P H Shield

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Is healthy eating for obese children necessarily more costly for families?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012
    Article
  14. Obesity and chronic disease in younger people: an unfolding crisis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jonathan BanksAcademic Unit of Primary Health Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Jessica Williams
Tina Cumberlidge
Tânia Cimonetti
Deborah J Sharp
Julian P H Shield
Bristol Royal Hospital for Children · GBBristol Royal Infirmary · GBUniversity of Arizona Cancer CenterUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0706-10090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring consultations on weight management in childhood obesity clinics, the additional costs incurred by healthy eating are often cited, as an economic barrier to achieving a better nutritional balance.

aimTo examine whether adopting an improved theoretical, balanced diet compared to current dietary habits in children incurs additional cost. DESIGN AND

settingChildren aged 5-16 years (body mass index [BMI] ≥98th percentile) recruited to a randomised trial comparing a hospital-based and primary care childhood obesity clinics provided data for this study.

methodThree-day dietary diaries collected at baseline were analysed for energy and fat intake and then compared to a theoretical, adjusted healthy-eating diet based on the Food Standards Agency, 'Eatwell plate'. Both were priced contemporaneously using the appropriate portion size, at a neighbourhood, mid-range supermarket, at a budget supermarket, and on the local high street.

resultsThe existing diet purchased at a budget supermarket was cheapest (£2.48/day). The healthier, alternative menu at the same shop cost an additional 33 pence/day (£2.81). The same exercise in a mid-range supermarket, incurred an additional cost of 4 pence per day (£3.40 versus £3.44). Switching from an unhealthy mid-range supermarket menu to the healthier, budget-outlet alternative saved 59 pence per day. The healthier, alternative menu was cheaper than the existing diet if purchased on the high street (£3.58 versus £3.75), although for both menus this was most expensive.

conclusionFor many obese children, eating healthily would not necessarily incur prohibitive, additional financial cost, although a poor diet at a budget supermarket remains the cheapest of all options. Cost is a possible barrier to healthy eating for the most economically disadvantaged.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCost of IllnessDietary FatsDiet RecordsEnergy IntakeFemaleFoodHealth BehaviorHumansMaleObesityDietary Fats

Identifiers

PMID22520655
PMCPMC3252534
OpenAlexW2122304303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.