ArticleNutrients2022
Sensory Appeal and Routines Beat Health Messages and Visibility Enhancements: Mixed-Methods Analysis of a Choice-Architecture Intervention in a Workplace Cafeteria.
Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the gap: Multi-sector perspectives on human, domestic animal, and wildlife leptospirosis in Ontario, Canada.PloS one · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Sensory Qualities of Refined and Wholegrain Rice as Ingredients within Mixed Dishes.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of workplace choice architecture modification for healthy eating and daily physical activity.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Acceptability of workplace choice architecture modification for healthy behaviours.BMC public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Easier recognition and enhanced visibility of healthy options supposedly increase healthy choices, but real-world evidence remains scarce. Addressing this knowledge gap, we promoted nutritionally favourable foods in a workplace cafeteria with three choice-architectural strategies-priming posters, point-of-choice nutrition labels, and improved product placement-and assessed their effects on visual attention, food choices, and food consumption. Additionally, we developed a method for analysing real-world eye-tracking data. The study followed a pretest-posttest design whereby control and intervention condition lasted five days each. We monitored visual attention (i.e., total number and duration of fixations) and food choices with eye tracking, interviewed customers about perceived influences on food choices, and measured cafeteria-level food consumption (g). Individual-level data represents 22 control and 19 intervention participants recruited at the cafeteria entrance. Cafeteria-level data represents food consumption during the trial (556/589 meals sold). Results indicated that the posters and labels captured participants' visual attention (~13% of fixations on defined areas of interest before food choices), but the intervention had insignificant effects on visual attention to foods, on food choices, and on food consumption. Interviews revealed 17 perceived influences on food choices, the most common being sensory appeal, healthiness, and familiarity. To conclude, the intervention appeared capable of attracting visual attention, yet ineffective in increasing healthier eating. The developed method enabled a rigorous analysis of visual attention and food choices in a natural choice setting. We discuss ways to boost the impact of the intervention on behaviour, considering target groups' motives. The work contributes with a unique, mixed-methods approach and a real-world setting that enabled a multi-dimensional effects evaluation with high external validity.
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.