Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30115084›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2018

Impact of reducing portion sizes in worksite cafeterias: a stepped wedge randomised controlled pilot trial.

Gareth J Hollands, Emma Cartwright, Mark Pilling, Rachel Pechey, Milica Vasiljevic, Susan A Jebb, Theresa M Marteau

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Healthy Food Service Guidelines for Worksites and Institutions: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Plate size and food consumption: a pre-registered experimental study in a general population sample.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gareth J HollandsBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. gareth.hollands@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0492-3924
Emma CartwrightBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Mark PillingBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Rachel PecheyBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Milica VasiljevicBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Susan A JebbBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Theresa M MarteauBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Department of Health (England) [PR-UN-0409-10109]Insititute of Grocery Distribution [RG83425]Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust [106679/Z/14/Z]
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReducing the portion sizes of foods available in restaurants and cafeterias is one promising approach to reducing energy intake, but there is little evidence of its impact from randomised studies in field settings. This study aims to i. examine the feasibility and acceptability, and ii. estimate the impact on energy purchased, of reducing portion sizes in worksite cafeterias.

methodsNine worksites in England were recruited to reduce by at least 10% the portion sizes of foods available in their cafeterias from targeted categories (main meals, sides, desserts, cakes). In a stepped wedge randomised controlled pilot trial, each site was randomised to a date of implementation, staggered fortnightly, following a baseline period of four weeks. Impact on energy purchased was analysed using generalised linear mixed modelling. We also assessed feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity of intervention implementation.

resultsData from six of the nine randomised sites were analysed, with three sites excluded for not providing sufficient data and/or not implementing the intervention. The extent to which the intervention was implemented varied by site, with between 6 and 49% of products altered within targeted categories. Feedback following the intervention suggested it was broadly acceptable to customers and cafeteria staff. For the primary outcome of daily energy (kcal) purchased from intervention categories, there was no statistically significant change when data from all six sites were pooled: percentage change - 8.9% (95% CI: -16.7, - 0.4; p = 0.081). Each of these six sites showed reductions in energy purchased, ranging from - 15.6 to - 0.3%, which were borderline statistically significant at two sites (respective percentage changes (95% CIs): - 15.6% (- 26.7, - 2.8); - 14.0% (- 25.0, - 1.2)). Secondary outcome data are suggestive of a compensatory increase in energy purchased from food categories not targeted by the intervention, with no overall effect observed on energy purchased across all categories.

conclusionsThe results of this pilot trial suggest that reducing portion sizes could be effective in reducing energy purchased and consumed from targeted food categories, and merits investigation in a larger trial. Future studies will need to address factors that prevented optimal implementation including site dropout and application across a limited range of products.

trial registration( ISRCTN52923504 ). Registered on 20th September 2016.

Indexed as

Energy IntakeFeeding BehaviorMealsPortion SizeRestaurantsWorkplaceAdultEnglandFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMalePilot ProjectsChoice architectureNudgingPhysical micro-environmentPortion sizeRandomised controlled trialStepped wedge trialWorkplace interventions

Identifiers

PMID30115084
PMCPMC6097301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.