ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2023
Efficacy of front-of-pack warning label system versus guideline for daily amount on healthfulness perception, purchase intention and objective understanding of nutrient content of food products in Guatemala: a cross-over cluster randomized controlled experiment.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of front-of-package nutrition labelling systems on objective understanding and purchase intention in El Salvador: results from a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial.European journal of nutrition · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Point-of-sale sugar-sweetened beverage warning postersPublic health nutrition · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFront-of-package warning labels (FOPWL) have been adopted in many countries aiming at reducing the consumption of unhealthy food and drink products and have also been considered in Guatemala. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of FOPWL versus Guidelines for Daily Amount (GDA) on products' healthfulness perception (HP), purchase intention (PI) and the objective understanding of the nutrient content (UNC) in Guatemala.
methodsParticipants (children and adults) (n = 356) were randomly assigned to evaluate either FOPWL or GDA during a crossover cluster randomized experiment in rural and urban areas across 3 phases of exposure. During phase 1, participants evaluated mock-up images of single products (single task) and compared pairs of products within the same food category (comparison task) without any label. In phase 2, participants evaluated labels only (without any product), and during phase 3, they evaluated the same products and questions from phase 1, now depicting the assigned front-of-package label. We generated indicators for single-task questions and scores for comparison tasks, one for each HP, PI and UNC questions. We used intention-to-treat, difference-in-difference regression analysis to test whether exposure to FOPWL was associated with HP, PI and UNC, compared to GDA. We also tested models for children and adults and by area (rural/urban) separately adjusting for sociodemographic variables.
resultsIn single tasks, FOPWL significantly decreased the PI (β -18.1, 95%CI -23.3, -12.8; p < 0.001) and the HP (β -13.2, 95%CI -18.4, -7.9; p < 0.001) of unhealthy food products compared to GDA. In the comparison task, FOPWL significantly increased the UNC (β 20.4, 95%CI 17.0, 23.9; p < 0.001), improved PI towards healthier choices (OR 4.5, 95%CI 2.9, 7.0 p < 0.001) and HP (OR 5.6, 95%CI 2.8, 11.1; p < 0.001) compared to GDA. Similar results were found in children and adults and in urban and rural settings.
conclusionsFOPWL reduces products' healthfulness perception and purchase intention, and increases understanding of products' nutrient content compared to GDA.
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.