Trial reportAppetite2019
What is the impact of increasing the prominence of calorie labelling? A stepped wedge randomised controlled pilot trial in worksite cafeterias.
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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Calorie (energy) labelling for changing selection and consumption of food or alcohol.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Socioeconomic position and the effect of energy labelling on consumer behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels' impact on energy purchased in cafeterias: A stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2022Trial
- How do organisations promote the nutritional health of food manufacturing employees? A scoping review and industry survey.Public health nutrition · 2026Article
- The Way Calories Are Displayed on Restaurant Menus May Not Affect Calorie Intake: Evidence from an Online Experiment.Nutrients · 2025Article
- The UK Food Environment: A Systematic Review of Domains, Methodologies, and Outcomes.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Review
- Evaluating the association between the introduction of mandatory calorie labelling and energy consumed using observational data from the out-of-home food sector in England.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- The impact of the English calorie labelling policy on the energy content of food offered and purchased in worksite cafeterias: a natural experiment.BMC nutrition · 2024Article
- Assessing public perception and awareness of UK mandatory calorie labeling in the out-of-home sector: Using Twitter and Google trends data.Obesity science & practice · 2023Article
- Workplace cafeteria and other multicomponent interventions to promote healthy eating among adults: A systematic review.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Review
- Increasing the proportion of healthier foods available with and without reducing portion sizes and energy purchased in worksite cafeterias: protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Energy (calorie) labelling for healthier selection and consumption of food or alcohol.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCalorie labelling may help to reduce energy consumption, but few well-controlled experimental studies have been conducted in real world settings. In a previous randomised controlled pilot trial we did not observe an effect of calorie labelling on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias. In the present study we sought to enhance the effect by making the labels more prominent, and to address the operational challenges reported previously by worksites.
methodsThree worksite cafeterias were randomised in a stepped wedge design to start the intervention at one of three fortnightly periods between March and July 2018. The intervention comprised introducing prominent calorie labelling for all cafeteria products for which calorie information was available (on average 87% of products offered across the three sites were labelled). Calorie content was displayed in bold capitalised Verdana typeface with a minimum font size of 14 e.g.120 CALORIES. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed using post-intervention surveys with cafeteria patrons and semi-structured interviews with managers. Effectiveness was assessed using total daily energy (kcal) purchased from intervention items across the three sites, analysed using semi-parametric GAMLSS models.
resultsRecruitment and retention of worksite cafeterias proved feasible: all three randomised sites successfully completed the study. Post-intervention feedback suggested high levels of intervention acceptability: 87% of responding patrons wanted calorie labelling to remain in place. No effect of the intervention on daily energy purchased was observed: -0.6% (95%CI -2.5 to 1.2, p = .487). By-site analyses showed similar null effects at each of the three sites, all ps > .110.
conclusionsThere was no evidence that prominent calorie labelling changed daily energy purchased across three English-based worksite cafeterias. The intervention was feasible to implement and acceptable to patrons and managers.
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.