Dataset Information

Increasing availability of lower energy meals vs. energy labelling in virtual full-service restaurants: two randomized controlled trials in participants of higher and lower socioeconomic position.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are a range of interventions designed to promote healthier food choices in full-service restaurants. However, it is unclear how these interventions affect dietary choices in people of lower and higher socioeconomic position (SEP).

Methods

A total of 2091 US participants recruited online completed Study 1 (n = 1001) and Study 2 (n = 1090). Recruitment was stratified by participant highest education level, resulting in higher SEP and lower SEP groups. In a between-subjects design, participants made hypothetical food choices (main dish, plus optional sides and desserts) from six restaurants menus in the absence vs. presence of menu energy labelling and from menus with baseline (10%) vs. increased availability (50%) of lower energy main dishes. Data were collected and analysed in 2019. Two studies were conducted in order to examine replicability and generalisability of findings across different restaurant menu types.

Results

Across both studies, increasing the availability of lower energy main menu options decreased the average energy content of the ordered main dish (- 129 kcal, 95% CI [- 139; - 119]) and total energy ordered (- 117 kcal, 95% CI [- 138; - 95]) in both higher and lower SEP participants. Energy labelling significantly reduced the energy content of ordered main dishes in higher SEP participants (- 41 kcal, 95% CI [- 54; - 29]), but not lower SEP participants (- 5 kcal, 95% CI [- 22; 11]). However, energy labelling reduced total energy ordered (- 83 kcal, 95% CI [- 105; - 60]) irrespective of SEP.

Conclusions

In two virtual experiments, increasing the availability of lower energy restaurant main menu options impacted on main menu dish choice and decreased total energy ordered irrespective of SEP. Energy labelling had a less pronounced effect on total energy ordered and had a larger impact on the energy content of main menu dish choice in higher as opposed to lower SEP participants.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04336540 retrospectively registered (7 April, 2020).

SUBMITTER: Marty L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8147368 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Food consumed outside of the home is often high in energy and population level interventions that reduce energy intake of people from both lower and higher socioeconomic position (SEP) are needed. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness and SEP equity of structural-based (e.g. increasing availability of lower energy options) and information provision (e.g. menu energy labelling) interventions on food choice. METHODS:Across two online experiments, participants of lower and higher SEP made meal choices in a novel virtual fast-food restaurant. To be eligible to take part, participants were required to be UK residents, aged 18 or above, fluent in English, have access to a computer with an internet connection and have no dietary restrictions. Participants were randomized to one of four conditions in a 2?×?2 between-subjects design: menu energy labelling present vs. absent and increased availability of lower energy options (75% of menu options lower energy) vs. baseline availability (25% of menu options lower energy). Participants also completed measures of executive function and food choice motives. RESULTS:The analysis of pooled data from both studies (n =?1743) showed that increasing the availability of lower energy options resulted in participants ordering meals with significantly less energy on average (-?71?kcal, p?<? 0.001, partial ?2?=?0.024) and this effect was observed irrespective of participant SEP. Menu labelling had no significant effect on energy ordered (-?18?kcal, p?=?0.116, partial ?2?=?0.001) in participants from both higher and lower SEP. Furthermore, we found no evidence that executive function or food choice motives moderated the effect of increasing lower energy menu options or energy labelling on total energy ordered. CONCLUSIONS:In a virtual fast-food environment, energy labelling was ineffective in reducing total energy ordered for both higher and lower SEP participants. Increasing the availability of lower energy options had an equitable effect, reducing total energy ordered in participants from higher and lower SEP. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Study protocols and analysis plans were pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ajcr6/).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Meals from full-service restaurants (FS) and fast-food restaurants (FF) are an integral part of US diets, but current levels and trends in consumption, healthfulness, and related sociodemographic disparities are not well characterized. OBJECTIVES:We aimed to assess patterns and nutritional quality (using validated American Heart Association [AHA] diet scores) of FS and FF meals consumed by US adults. METHODS:Serial cross-sectional investigation utilizing 24-h dietary recalls in survey-weighted, nationally representative samples of 35,015 adults aged ≥20 y from 7 NHANES cycles, 2003-2016. RESULTS:Between 2003 and 2016, American adults consumed ∼21 percent of energyfrom restaurants (FS: 8.5% in 2003-2004, 9.5% in 2015-2016, P-trend = 0.38; FF: 10.5%; 13.4%, P-trend = 0.31). Over this period, more FF meals were eaten for breakfast (from 4.4% to 7.6% of all breakfasts, P-trend <0.001), with no changes for lunch (15.2% to 15.3%) or dinner (14.6% to 14.4%). In 2015-2016, diet quality of both FS and FF were low, with mean AHA diet scores of 31.6 and 27.6 (out of 80). Between 2003 and 2016, diet quality of FF meals improved slightly, (the percentage with poor quality went from 74.6% to 69.8%; and with intermediate quality, from 25.4% to 30.2%; P-trend <0.001 each). Proportions of FS meals of poor (∼50%) and intermediate (∼50%) quality were stable over time, with <0.1% of consumed FS or FF meals meeting ideal quality. Disparities in FS meal quality persisted by race/ethnicity, obesity status, and education and worsened by income; whereas disparities in FF meal quality persisted by age, sex, and obesity status and worsened by race/ethnicity, education, and income. CONCLUSIONS:Between 2003 and 2016, FF and FS meals provided 1 in 5 calories for US adults. Modest improvements occurred in nutritional quality of FF, but not FS, meals consumed, and the average quality for both remained low with persistent or widening disparities. These findings highlight the need for strategies to improve the nutritional quality of US restaurant meals.

Project description:IntroductionIn the U.S., children regularly consume foods from quick-service restaurants, but little is known about the marketing strategies currently used inside quick-service restaurants. This study aims to validate a child-focused Environmental Assessment Tool for quick-service restaurants, evaluate marketing strategies inside and on the exterior of quick-service restaurants, and examine differences by community race/ethnicity or income.MethodsThe inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the Environmental Assessment Tool were assessed across the top 5 national quick-service restaurant chains. Marketing techniques in 165 quick-service restaurants (33 per national chain) in socioeconomically and racially/ethnically diverse communities throughout New England were examined in 2018-2019. Mixed methods ANOVA examined the differences in marketing techniques in 2020.ResultsThe inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the Environmental Assessment Tool were high (Cohen's κ>0.80). Approximately 95% of quick-service restaurants marketed less healthy foods, whereas only 6.5% marketed healthy options. When examining the differences by community demographics, there were significantly more price promotion advertisements inside and on the exterior of quick-service restaurants in lower-income communities. In addition, there was a greater number of child-directed advertisements with cartoon or TV/movie characters as well as fewer healthy entrée options and more sugar-sweetened beverage and dessert options on the children's menu inside quick-service restaurants in communities with higher minority populations.ConclusionsEnvironmental Assessment Tool is a valid tool to evaluate marketing inside quick-service restaurants. Results suggest that there is a substantial amount of unhealthy food and beverage marketing inside quick-service restaurants, with differences in the number and types of techniques used in lower-income and minority communities. Policies that limit quick-service restaurant marketing to children should be considered.