3.9 Reprint

Point-of-Purchase Nutrition Information Influences Food-Purchasing Behaviors of College Students: A Pilot Study (Reprinted from American Dietetic Association, vol 110, pg 1222-1226, 2010)

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
卷 111, 期 5, 页码 S42-S46

出版社

AMER DIETETIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2011.03.008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of point-of-purchase (POP) nutrition information is to help consumers make informed, healthful choices. Despite limited evaluation, these population-based approaches are being advocated to replace traditional, more expensive, individual behavior-change strategies. Few studies have examined the effect of POP information on buying patterns of college students, a group with high obesity rates and poor eating habits. This quasi-experimental pilot project sought to determine whether the Eat Smart POP program affected food-purchasing habits of multiethnic college students shopping at an on-campus convenience store. Baseline sales data of foods in the cereal, soup, cracker, and bread categories were collected for 6 weeks during Fall 2008. After Winter break, a few food items within each of these food categories were labeled as healthful using a Fuel Your Life shelf tag, and sales data were then collected for 5 weeks. In each of the four food categories, nontagged foods were available at the identical price as tagged items. Following intervention, there were increased sales of tagged items (measured as a percentage of total sales) in the cereal, soup, and cracker categories, while sales of bread decreased. Although none of these changes were statistically significant, the intervention resulted in a 3.6%+/-1.6% (P=0.082) increase in the percentage of sales from tagged items. Thus, providing POP nutrition information in a college campus convenience store may promote healthful food choices. A longer study examining the effect of POP on sales of items in other food categories is warranted. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111:S42-S46.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据