Dataset Information

What is the impact of increasing the prominence of calorie labelling? A stepped wedge randomised controlled pilot trial in worksite cafeterias.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Calorie labelling may help to reduce energy consumption, but few well-controlled experimental studies have been conducted in real world settings. In a previous randomised controlled pilot trial we did not observe an effect of calorie labelling on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias. In the present study we sought to enhance the effect by making the labels more prominent, and to address the operational challenges reported previously by worksites.

Methods

Three worksite cafeterias were randomised in a stepped wedge design to start the intervention at one of three fortnightly periods between March and July 2018. The intervention comprised introducing prominent calorie labelling for all cafeteria products for which calorie information was available (on average 87% of products offered across the three sites were labelled). Calorie content was displayed in bold capitalised Verdana typeface with a minimum font size of 14 e.g.120 CALORIES. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed using post-intervention surveys with cafeteria patrons and semi-structured interviews with managers. Effectiveness was assessed using total daily energy (kcal) purchased from intervention items across the three sites, analysed using semi-parametric GAMLSS models.

Results

Recruitment and retention of worksite cafeterias proved feasible: all three randomised sites successfully completed the study. Post-intervention feedback suggested high levels of intervention acceptability: 87% of responding patrons wanted calorie labelling to remain in place. No effect of the intervention on daily energy purchased was observed: -0.6% (95%CI -2.5 to 1.2, p = .487). By-site analyses showed similar null effects at each of the three sites, all ps > .110.

Conclusions

There was no evidence that prominent calorie labelling changed daily energy purchased across three English-based worksite cafeterias. The intervention was feasible to implement and acceptable to patrons and managers.

SUBMITTER: Vasiljevic M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8161726 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:For working adults, about one-third of energy is consumed in the workplace making this an important context in which to reduce energy intake to tackle obesity. The aims of the current study were first, to identify barriers to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing calorie labelling in preparation for a larger trial, and second, to estimate the potential impact of calorie labelling on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias. METHODS:Six worksite cafeterias were randomised to the intervention starting at one of six fortnightly periods, using a stepped wedge design. The trial was conducted between August and December 2016, across 17 study weeks. The intervention comprised labelling all cafeteria products for which such information was available with their calorie content (e.g. "250 Calories") displayed in the same font style and size as for price. A post-intervention survey with cafeteria patrons and interviews with managers and caterers were used to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Intervention impact was assessed using generalised linear mixed modelling. The primary outcome was the total energy (kcal) purchased from intervention items in each cafeteria each day. RESULTS:Recruitment and retention of worksite cafeterias proved feasible, with post-intervention feedback suggesting high levels of intervention acceptability. Several barriers to intervention implementation were identified, including chefs' discretion at implementing recipes and the manual recording of sales data. There was no overall effect of the intervention: -0.4% (95%CI -3.8 to 2.9, p?=?.803). One site showed a statistically significant effect of the intervention, with an estimated 6.6% reduction (95%CI -12.9 to -?0.3, p?=?.044) in energy purchased in the day following the introduction of calorie labelling, an effect that diminished over time. The remaining five sites did not show robust changes in energy purchased when calorie labelling was introduced. CONCLUSIONS:A calorie labelling intervention was acceptable to both cafeteria operators and customers. The predicted effect of labelling to reduce energy purchased was only evident at one out of six sites studied. Before progressing to a full trial, the calorie labelling intervention needs to be optimised, and a number of operational issues resolved. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN52923504 ; Registered: 22/09/2016; retrospectively registered.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Reducing the portion sizes of foods available in restaurants and cafeterias is one promising approach to reducing energy intake, but there is little evidence of its impact from randomised studies in field settings. This study aims to i. examine the feasibility and acceptability, and ii. estimate the impact on energy purchased, of reducing portion sizes in worksite cafeterias. METHODS:Nine worksites in England were recruited to reduce by at least 10% the portion sizes of foods available in their cafeterias from targeted categories (main meals, sides, desserts, cakes). In a stepped wedge randomised controlled pilot trial, each site was randomised to a date of implementation, staggered fortnightly, following a baseline period of four weeks. Impact on energy purchased was analysed using generalised linear mixed modelling. We also assessed feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity of intervention implementation. RESULTS:Data from six of the nine randomised sites were analysed, with three sites excluded for not providing sufficient data and/or not implementing the intervention. The extent to which the intervention was implemented varied by site, with between 6 and 49% of products altered within targeted categories. Feedback following the intervention suggested it was broadly acceptable to customers and cafeteria staff. For the primary outcome of daily energy (kcal) purchased from intervention categories, there was no statistically significant change when data from all six sites were pooled: percentage change - 8.9% (95% CI: -16.7, - 0.4; p = 0.081). Each of these six sites showed reductions in energy purchased, ranging from - 15.6 to - 0.3%, which were borderline statistically significant at two sites (respective percentage changes (95% CIs): - 15.6% (- 26.7, - 2.8); - 14.0% (- 25.0, - 1.2)). Secondary outcome data are suggestive of a compensatory increase in energy purchased from food categories not targeted by the intervention, with no overall effect observed on energy purchased across all categories. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this pilot trial suggest that reducing portion sizes could be effective in reducing energy purchased and consumed from targeted food categories, and merits investigation in a larger trial. Future studies will need to address factors that prevented optimal implementation including site dropout and application across a limited range of products. TRIAL REGISTRATION:( ISRCTN52923504 ). Registered on 20th September 2016.

Project description:BackgroundA recent meta-analysis suggested that using physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels results in people selecting and consuming less energy. However, the meta-analysis included only 1 study in a naturalistic setting, conducted in 4 convenience stores. We therefore aimed to estimate the effect of PACE labels on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias in the context of a randomised study design.Methods and findingsA stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to investigate the effect of PACE labels (which include kcal content and minutes of walking required to expend the energy content of the labelled food) on energy purchased. The setting was 10 worksite cafeterias in England, which were randomised to the order in which they introduced PACE labels on selected food and drinks following a baseline period. There were approximately 19,000 workers employed at the sites, 72% male, with an average age of 40. The study ran for 12 weeks (06 April 2021 to 28 June 2021) with over 250,000 transactions recorded on electronic tills. The primary outcome was total energy (kcal) purchased from intervention items per day. The secondary outcomes were: energy purchased from non-intervention items per day, total energy purchased per day, and revenue. Regression models showed no evidence of an overall effect on energy purchased from intervention items, -1,934 kcals per site per day (95% CI -5,131 to 1,262), p = 0.236, during the intervention relative to baseline, equivalent to -5 kcals per transaction (95% CI -14 to 4). There was also no evidence for an effect on energy purchased from non-intervention items, -5 kcals per site per day (95% CI -513 to 504), p = 0.986, equivalent to 0 kcals per transaction (95% CI -1 to 1), and no clear evidence for total energy purchased -2,899 kcals per site (95% CI -5,810 to 11), p = 0.051, equivalent to -8 kcals per transaction (95% CI -16 to 0). Study limitations include using energy purchased and not energy consumed as the primary outcome and access only to transaction-level sales, rather than individual-level data.ConclusionOverall, the evidence was consistent with PACE labels not changing energy purchased in worksite cafeterias. There was considerable variation in effects between cafeterias, suggesting important unmeasured moderators.Trial registrationThe study was prospectively registered on ISRCTN (date: 30.03.21; ISRCTN31315776).

Project description:BackgroundOverconsumption of energy from food is a major contributor to the high rates of overweight and obesity in many populations. There is growing evidence that interventions that target the food environment may be effective at reducing energy intake. The current study aimed to estimate the effect of decreasing the proportion of higher energy (kcal) foods, with and without reducing portion size, on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias.Methods and findingsThis stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated 2 interventions: (i) availability: replacing higher energy products with lower energy products; and (ii) size: reducing the portion size of higher energy products. A total of 19 cafeterias were randomised to the order in which they introduced the 2 interventions. Availability was implemented first and maintained. Size was added to the availability intervention. Intervention categories included main meals, sides, cold drinks, snacks, and desserts. The study setting was worksite cafeterias located in distribution centres for a major United Kingdom supermarket and lasted for 25 weeks (May to November 2019). These cafeterias were used by 20,327 employees, mainly (96%) in manual occupations. The primary outcome was total energy (kcal) purchased from intervention categories per day. The secondary outcomes were energy (kcal) purchased from nonintervention categories per day, total energy purchased per day, and revenue. Regression models showed an overall reduction in energy purchased from intervention categories of -4.8% (95% CI -7.0% to -2.7%), p < 0.001 during the availability intervention period and a reduction of -11.5% (95% CI -13.7% to -9.3%), p < 0.001 during the availability plus size intervention period, relative to the baseline. There was a reduction in energy purchased of -6.6% (95% CI -7.9% to -5.4%), p < 0.001 during the availability plus size period, relative to availability alone. Study limitations include using energy purchased as the primary outcome (and not energy consumed) and the availability only of transaction-level sales data per site (and not individual-level data).ConclusionsDecreasing the proportion of higher energy foods in cafeterias reduced the energy purchased. Decreasing portion sizes reduced this further. These interventions, particularly in combination, may be effective as part of broader strategies to reduce overconsumption of energy from food in out-of-home settings.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN87225572.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Regular physical activity is an important component of healthy living and wellbeing. Current guidelines recommend that adults participate in at least 150?min of moderate or vigorous-intensity physical activity weekly. In spite of the benefits, just over half of U.S. adults meet these recommendations. Calorie-only food labels at points of food purchase have had limited success in motivating people to change eating behaviors and increase physical activity. One new point of purchase approach to promote healthy behaviors is the addition of food labels that display the physical activity requirement needed to burn the calories in a food item (e.g. walk 15?min). METHODS:The Physical Activity Calorie Expenditure (PACE) Study compared activity-based calorie-expenditure food labels with calorie-only labels at three Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina worksite cafeterias. After 1 year of baseline data collection, one cafeteria had food items labeled with PACE labels, two others had calorie-only food labels. Cohort participants were asked to wear an accelerometer and complete a self-report activity questionnaire on two occasions during the baseline year and twice during the intervention year. RESULTS:A total of 366 study participants were included in the analysis. In the PACE-label group, self-reported physical activity increased by 13-26% compared to the calorie-only label group. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) increased by 24?min per week in the PACE-label group compared to the calorie-label group (p =?0.06). Changes in accelerometer measured steps, sedentary time, and MVPA had modest increases. Change ranged from 1 to 12% with effect size values from 0.08 to 0.15. Baseline physical activity level significantly moderated the intervention effects for all physical activity outcomes. Participants in both label groups starting in the lowest tertile of activity saw the largest increase in their physical activity. CONCLUSION:Results suggest small positive effects for the PACE labels on self-reported and objective physical activity measures. Minutes of weekly MVPA, strength training, and exercise activities showed modest increases. These results suggest that calorie-expenditure food labels may result in some limited increases in physical activity.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cluster randomised trials with unequal sized clusters often have lower precision than with clusters of equal size. To allow for this, sample sizes are inflated by a modified version of the design effect for clustering. These inflation factors are valid under the assumption that randomisation is stratified by cluster size. We investigate the impact of unequal cluster size when that constraint is relaxed, with particular focus on the stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, where this is more difficult to achieve. METHODS:Assuming a multi-level mixed effect model with exchangeable correlation structure for a cross-sectional design, we use simulation methods to compare the precision for a trial with clusters of unequal size to a trial with clusters of equal size (relative efficiency). For a range of scenarios we illustrate the impact of various design features (the cluster-mean correlation - a function of the intracluster correlation and the cluster size, the number of clusters, number of randomisation sequences) on the average and distribution of the relative efficiency. RESULTS:Simulations confirm that the average reduction in precision, due to varying cluster sizes, is smaller in a stepped-wedge trial compared to the parallel trial. However, the variance of the distribution of the relative efficiency is large; and is larger under the stepped-wedge design compared to the parallel design. This can result in large variations in actual power, depending on the allocation of clusters to sequences. Designs with larger variations in cluster sizes, smaller number of clusters and studies with smaller cluster-mean correlations (smaller cluster sizes or smaller intra-cluster correlation) are particularly at risk. CONCLUSION:The actual realised power in a stepped-wedge trial might be substantially higher or lower than that estimated. This is particularly important when there are a small number of clusters or the variability in cluster sizes is large. Constraining the randomisation on cluster size, where feasible, might mitigate this effect.