Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35889758›Full record

ArticleNutrients2022

Healthy or Not Healthy? A Mixed-Methods Approach to Evaluate Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels as a Tool to Guide Consumers.

Melvi Todd, Timothy Guetterman, Jako Volschenk, Martin Kidd, Elizabeth Joubert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Melvi ToddDepartment of Food Science, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-0424-278X
Timothy GuettermanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0093-858X
Jako VolschenkDepartment of Economic and Management Sciences, Stellenbosch Business School, Stellenbosch University, Bellville 7530, South Africa.
Martin KiddCentre for Statistical Consultation, Department of Statistics and Actuarial Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-4887-7296
Elizabeth JoubertDepartment of Food Science, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-9717-9769

Funding

Department of Science and Innovation (South Africa) DST/CON 00029/2019National Research Foundation MND190508435061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study explored how South African food labels could be improved, to enhance customer evaluation of the overall healthiness of packaged food. Focus was given to the comparison of front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels as a quick assessment tool. The exploratory sequential mixed-methods design used qualitative interviews (n = 49) to gain insight into labeling challenges and select FOP nutrition labels for consumer testing. Consumers (n = 1261) randomly assessed two out of six possible FOP nutrition labels relative to a ‘no-label’ control in one of 12 online surveys, applied to a fictitious cereal product. A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare the differences in health ratings for the different FOP nutrition labels. The interviews revealed three themes for label improvement, that are presented over three time horizons. In terms of helping consumers identify less healthy products, the effect sizes were most prominent for health warnings (p < 0.01) and low health star ratings (p < 0.01). The findings of this research not only clarify whether FOP nutrition labeling formats used in other regions such as Europe, South America and Australia could be useful in the South African context, but they can assist policymakers and decision-makers in selecting an effective FOP label.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorFood LabelingChoice BehaviorFoodFood PreferencesNutritional StatusNutritive ValueconsumerFOP nutrition labelhealth promotionmixed methodsnon-communicable diseasenutritional policyultra-processed food

Identifiers

PMID35889758
PMCPMC9318739

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.