4.6 Review

Effects of physical activity calorie equivalent food labelling to reduce food selection and consumption: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech-2019-213216

关键词

-

资金

  1. Loughborough University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background There is limited evidence that nutritional labelling on food/drinks is changing eating behaviours. Physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) food labelling aims to provide the public with information about the amount of physical activity required to expend the number of kilocalories in food/drinks (eg, calories in this pizza requires 45 min of running to burn), to encourage healthier food choices and reduce disease. Objective We aimed to systematically search for randomised controlled trials and experimental studies of the effects of PACE food labelling on the selection, purchase or consumption of food/drinks. Methods PACE food labelling was compared with any other type of food labelling or no labelling (comparator). Reports were identified by searching electronic databases, websites and social media platforms. Inverse variance meta-analysis was used to summarise evidence. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% CIs were used to describe between-group differences using a random effects model. Results 15 studies were eligible for inclusion. When PACE labelling was displayed on food/drinks and menus, significantly fewer calories were selected, relative to comparator labelling (WMD=-64.9 kcal, 95% CI -103.2 to -26.6, p=0.009, n=4606). Presenting participants with PACE food labelling results in the consumption of significantly fewer calories (WMD=-80.4 kcal, 95% CI-136.7 to -24.2, p=0.005, n=486) relative to comparator food labelling. Conclusion Based on current evidence PACE food labelling may reduce the number of kilocalories selected from menus and decrease the number of kilocalories/grams of food consumed by the public, compared with other types of food labelling/no labelling.

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

4.6
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