ArticleBMJ public health2026
Which front-of-pack nutritional label (FOPNL) is most effective in promoting healthier dietary choices? An experimental study in Indonesia.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mandatory interpretative front-of-pack nutrition labels (FOPNLs) are yet to be adopted in Indonesia. This study compares Indonesians' objective understanding of five FOPNLs and explores perceptions on four interpretative labels. Methods: A randomised experiment was conducted in 4039 participants aged 16-78 years. Participants were assigned to view food products with one of five FOPNLs: Guideline Daily Amounts, Nutri-Score, multiple traffic light (MTL), warning labels (WL) or health star rating (HSR). Objective understanding was compared pre-label and post-label exposure by correctly ranking products by healthiness (Outcome 1) and identifying the healthiest (Outcome 2) and least healthy products (Outcome 3) using logistic mixed models. Healthy purchase intention post-label exposure (Outcome 4) was compared using logistic models. Perceptions of the four interpretative labels were explored. Results: All FOPNLs improved Outcomes 1, 2 and 3. WL and MTL performed better across all three outcomes, with no significant differences between them. Exposure to WL led to improvements of 16.3% points (95% CI 13.5 to 19.0), 9.5% points (95% CI 6.7 to 12.3) and 14.5% points (95% CI 11.3 to 17.7) for Outcomes 1, 2 and 3, respectively. MTL led to increases of 13.9% points (95% CI 11.2 to 16.6), 10.4% points (95% CI 7.4 to 13.4) and 16.8% points (95% CI 13.5 to 20.0), respectively. Proportion of participants intending to purchase the healthiest products (Outcome 4) was highest for MTL (39.6%, 95% CI 36.3 to 43.0), HSR (38.9%, 95% CI 35.5 to 42.2) and WL (35.6%, 95% CI 32.3 to 38.9), with no significant differences between them. Compared with WL and HSR, MTL was perceived as the most liked, useful, helpful and easy to identify. Conclusions: MTL and WL significantly improved participants' understanding of products' nutritional quality and promoted healthier food choices. MTL may offer the best balance between effectiveness and user acceptability. These findings can inform national FOPNL policy revisions and broader efforts to improve food environments.
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.