ArticlePublic health nutrition2013
Characteristics of consumers using 'better for you' front-of-pack food labelling schemes - an example from the Australian Heart Foundation Tick.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health Star Ratings and Beverage Purchase Intentions: A Study of Australian and New Zealand Hospitality Consumers.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Prevalence of Product Claims and Marketing Buzzwords Found on Health Food Snack Products Does Not Relate to Nutrient Profile.Nutrients · 2020Article
- Consumer Acceptability of Intramuscular Fat.Korean journal for food science of animal resources · 2016Article
- Consumers' Exposure to Nutrition and Health Claims on Pre-Packed Foods: Use of Sales Weighting for Assessing the Food Supply in Slovenia.Nutrients · 2015Article
- The Influence of Nutrition Labeling and Point-of-Purchase Information on Food Behaviours.Current obesity reports · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Heart Foundation Tick aims to help consumers make healthier food choices and overcome confusion in understanding food labels. Little is known about what factors differentiate frequent from infrequent users and the effectiveness of this scheme in helping Australians make healthier food choices.
designA cross-sectional survey was used to explore use of the Tick and associations with a range of individual characteristics.
settingA national panel of Australians, living in each state and territory, completed an online survey (n 1446). SUBJECTS: Adult men (41 %) and women participated in the study.
resultsMost trusted the Heart Foundation (79 %), and used the Tick at least occasionally (19 % regularly, 21 % often, 35 % occasionally, 24 % never). A majority was classified as overweight/obese (60 %), 3·5 % were diagnosed with CHD, 5·2 % with diabetes and 23 % with hypertension. Many did not meet recommendations for the consumption of red meat (30 %), processed meat (23 %), vegetables (78 %), fruit (43 %) and fast foods (47 %). Female frequent users tended to have hypertension, be married/de facto, older than 45 years, rural dwellers, and limit their intake of fast foods. Male frequent users tended to have hypertension, meet recommendations for fruit, vegetables and processed meats, but not have a tertiary education.
conclusionsThe Heart Foundation Tick is a highly trusted, highly recognizable food labelling scheme and helpful to consumers who are motivated to make healthier food choices. More inter-sector collaboration is required to incorporate these schemes into public health campaigns to help consumers make healthier food choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.