4.7 Review

Primary school interventions to promote fruit and vegetable consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 53, 期 1-2, 页码 3-9

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.04.016

关键词

Systematic review; Fruit; Vegetables; Schools; Children; Randomized controlled trials; Controlled clinical trials

资金

  1. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre (Barcelona, Spain)
  2. University of Cauca (Popayan, Colombia)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The consumption of fruits and vegetables (FV) may contribute to the prevention of many diseases. However, children at school age do not cat an enough amount of those foods. We have systematically reviewed the literature to assess the effectiveness of school interventions for promoting the consumption of FV. Methods. We performed a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL We pooled results and stratified the analysis according to type of intervention and study design. Results. Nineteen cluster studies were included. Most studies did not describe randomization method and did not take the cluster's effect into account. Pooled results of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of computer-based interventions showed effectiveness in improving consumption of FV [Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) 0.33 (95% CI 0.16. 0.50)]. No significant differences were found in pooled analysis of seven RCTs of multicomponent interventions or pooling results of two RCTs evaluating free/subsidized FV interventions. Conclusions. Meta-analysis shows that computer-based interventions were effective in increasing FV consumption. Multicomponent interventions and free/subsidized FV interventions were not effective. Improvements in methodology are needed in future cluster studies. Although these results are preliminary, computer-based interventions could be considered in schools, given that they are effective and cheaper than other alternatives. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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