ArticleNutrients2019
Choice Architecture in Appalachian High Schools: Evaluating and Improving Cafeteria Environments.
Article in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
School meals are a primary source of nutrition for many adolescents. Determining factors that influence the selection of various foods can provide insight on strategies to improve students' cafeteria choices. This evaluation and observation was conducted at three Appalachian high schools to assess the cafeteria environment. The study developed and implemented an assessment tool created using principles of choice architecture and behavioral economics building on the work of the Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs (BEN Center). The assessment tool scored eight components of the lunchroom-the exterior, hot serving area, cold serving area, salad bar, beverage area, payment station, dining area and grab-n-go, where a higher score equals healthier components offered. High school (HS) #1 earned 73/128 points (57%), HS #2 earned 69/128 (54%), and HS #3 earned 53/102 (52%). HS #3 did not have a grab-n-go option and the final score was out of 102. Video observation was used to collect data on lunchroom activity during mealtimes. Each school received reports that highlight the results and suggest improvements to raise their score. The scoring tool represents a novel way to assess the health of school lunches, provide insights on how to improve the healthfulness of students' lunch choice, and improve overall nutrition status.
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.