Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30468803›Full record

Trial reportAppetite2019

Impact of increasing the proportion of healthier foods available on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias: A stepped wedge randomized controlled pilot trial.

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

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Appetite, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. [Choice architecture in institutional food services: strategies to promote sustainable nutrition].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Healthy Food Service Guidelines for Worksites and Institutions: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Rachel PecheyBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: rachel.pechey@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Emma CartwrightBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: emma.cartwright@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Mark PillingBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: mark.pilling@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Gareth J HollandsBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: gareth.hollands@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Milica VasiljevicBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: milica.vasiljevic@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Susan A JebbBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: susan.jebb@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Theresa M MarteauBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: theresa.marteau@medschl.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 106679/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing the proportion of healthier foods available could encourage healthier consumption, but evidence to date is limited in scope and quality. The current study aimed to: (a) examine the feasibility and acceptability of intervening to change product availability in worksite cafeterias; and (b) estimate the impact on energy purchased of increasing the proportion of healthier (i.e. lower energy) cooked meals, snacks, cold drinks and sandwiches. Six English worksite cafeterias increased the proportion of healthier foods available, aiming to keep the total number of options constant, in a stepped wedge randomized controlled pilot trial conducted between January and May 2017. The intervention was generally successfully implemented and acceptable to clientele. Generalized linear mixed models showed a reduction of 6.9% (95%CI: -11.7%, -1.7%, p = 0.044) in energy (kcal) purchased from targeted food categories across all sites. However, impact varied across sites, with energy purchased from targeted categories significantly reduced in two sites (-10.7% (95%CI: -18.1% to -2.6%, p = 0.046); -18.4% (95%CI: -26.9% to -8.8%, p = 0.013)), while no significant differences were seen in the other four sites. Overall, increasing the proportion of healthier options available in worksite cafeterias seems a promising intervention to reduce energy purchased but contextual effects merit further study.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorDiet, HealthyEnergy IntakeFood ServicesFood SupplyAdultFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMalePilot ProjectsWorkplaceAvailabilityCafeteriasEnergyFoodPilotRCT

Identifiers

PMID30468803
PMCPMC6335439

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.