Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32164634›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2020

Randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of within versus across-category front-of-package lower-calorie labelling on food demand.

Eric Andrew Finkelstein, Felicia Jia Ler Ang, Brett Doble

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04165447 (Randomized Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of Within Versus Across-Category Front-of-Package Lower-Calorie Labelling on Food Demand), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT04165447 nacompletednot on this map

Randomized Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of Within Versus Across-Category Front-of-Package Lower-Calorie Labelling on Food Demand

TypeinterventionalSponsorDuke-NUS Graduate Medical SchoolRan2017 to 2018Enrolled146ConditionsFood SelectionArmsFront-of-pack labeling strategy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

3 authors.

Eric Andrew FinkelsteinProgramme in Health Services & Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore. eric.finkelstein@duke-nus.edu.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6443-9686
Felicia Jia Ler AngProgramme in Health Services & Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore.
Brett DobleProgramme in Health Services & Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore.

Funding

National University of Singapore AG-2014-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral front-of-pack (FOP) labels identify healthier options by comparing foods within product categories. Alternative approaches label healthier options by comparing across categories. Which approach is superior remains unknown. The objective of this study was to test the effect of a within-category versus across-category FOP lower calorie label on 1) the percentage of labeled products purchased, 2) several measures of calories purchased (total, per dollar and per serving), and 3) total spending. We also tested the moderating effects of hunger and mood on purchasing patterns.

methodsUsing an online grocery store, we conducted a 3 × 3 crossover trial involving actual purchases with 146 participants randomly exposed to: 1) no labeling control; 2) within-category lower calorie labels, and; 3) across-category lower calorie labels. We labeled the 20% of products with the lowest calories per serving within or across categories. Purchases were compared using a fixed effects regression on first-differenced outcomes.

resultsRelative to the control condition, there was a 3 percentage point increase (p = 0.01) in labelled products purchased in the within-category arm and a non-significant decrease of 1 percentage point (p = 0.711) in the across-category arm. There was no significant difference in the proportion of labeled products purchased between the two labelling conditions. Neither strategy resulted in reductions in any measure of calories purchased or in total spending. When limited to beverages, there was a 398 cal reduction (p = 0.01) in the within-category arm and a 438 cal reduction (p < 0.01) in the across-category arm versus the control. Mood and hunger did not modify the effects for either strategy.

conclusionsResults provide evidence that both labelling strategies have the potential to influence food purchasing patterns. However, we cannot definitely state that one labelling approach is superior or even that an increase in the proportion of labelled products purchased will lead to a reduction in calories purchased.

trial registrationThe American Economic Association's registry for randomized controlled trials, RCT ID: AEARCTR-0002325; Prospectively Registered October 06, 2017. In compliance with ICMJE policy, the trial was also registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, RCT ID: [NCT04165447]. Retrospectively Registered 11 November 2019.

Indexed as

Energy IntakeAdultAffectConsumer BehaviorCross-Over StudiesFemaleFood LabelingHumansHungerMaleCaloriesFood intakeFront-of-pack labelingNutrition labelingOnline grocery store

Identifiers

PMID32164634
PMCPMC7068974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.