ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2023
Economic and health impacts of the Change4Life Food Scanner app: Findings from a randomized pilot and feasibility study.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The UK Government developed the Change4Life Food Scanner app to provide families with engaging feedback on the nutritional content of packaged foods. There is a lack of research exploring the cost-effectiveness of dietary health promotion apps. Methods: Through stakeholder engagement, a conceptual model was developed, outlining the pathway by which the Food Scanner app leads to proximal and distal outcomes. The conceptual model informed the development of a pilot randomized controlled trial which investigated the feasibility and acceptability of evaluating clinical outcomes in children and economic effectiveness of the Food Scanner app through a cost-consequence analysis. Parents of 4-11 years-olds ( Results: 64 participants (51%) completed the study (intervention: Discussion: Modest mean differences between study arms may have been due to the exploration of distal outcomes over a short follow-up period. The study was also disrupted due to the coronavirus pandemic, which may have confounded healthcare resource data. Although measures adopted were deemed feasible, the study highlighted difficulties in obtaining data on app development and maintenance costs, as well as the importance of economic modeling to predict long-term outcomes that may not be reliably captured over the short-term. Clinical trial registration: https://osf.io/, identifier 62hzt.
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.