Author(s), Year | Study design | Sample Size | Setting | Country | Outcome [% change]a | Intervention (Choice Architecture alteration) description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Walsh and Kiviniemi, 2014 [17] | RCT | 117 | Laboratory | USA | 28.3 ± 0.0343 | Subjects’ affective associations with fruit and vegetables were experimentally altered using an implicit priming paradigm. They were then asked to choose between fruit or a granola bar for a snack. |
Privitera and Zuraikat, 2014 [18] | RCT | 56 | Laboratory | USA | 79.3 ± 17.7 [outlier] | Snacks were placed closer or farther away from subjects and their snack choices recorded and compared between control and experimental groups. |
Gittelsohn et al., 2013 [19] | Cross-sectional (pre-post comparison) | 145 | Market | USA (Navajo) | 7.84 ± 12.7 | Availability of healthy options was increased over a 14-month period. Outcomes were measured in change of purchases of healthy items. |
Kiesel and Villas-Boas, 2013 [20] | Cross-sectional (pre-post comparison) | 4000 | Market | USA | 12.8 ± 17.2 | Nutritional labelling was implemented over a four-week period. Outcomes were measured by purchases of healthy items. |
van Kleef et al., 2012 [21] | RCT | 67 | Laboratory | USA | 41.4 ± 11.8 | Size of bowl used to serve snacks was varied and consumption measured and compared between control and experimental group. |
Marchiori et al., 2012 [22] | RCT | 88 | Laboratory | Belgium | 129 ± 0.703 [outlier] | Participants were given snacks in differently sized containers and their consumption measured. |
Dumanovsky et al., 2011 [23] | Cross-sectional (pre-post comparison) | 7311 | Restaurant (fast-food) | USA | 2.20 ± 5.02 | Measurements of average energy content of purchases were made before and 21 months after addition of calorie labels to menu. |
Finkelstein et al., 2011 [24] | Cross-sectional (pre-post comparison) | 9823 | Restaurant (fast-food) | USA | −1.31 ± 3.37 | Calorie labelling was implemented in one county and compared to a county where it was not, using a five-month baseline period and six-month post-intervention period for results calculation. |
Hoefkens et al., 2011 [25] | Cohort | 657 | Canteen | Belgium | 2.20 ± 10.4 | Nutritional information was posted in a workplace canteen and employees surveyed regarding their lunchtime choices pre- and post-intervention. |
Ogawa et al., 2011 [26] | RCT | 1684 | Market | Japan | 9.10 ± 1.26 | Point-of-purchase nutritional information was added. Over a 60 day period, sales of healthy items were measured and compared between a control store and an experimental store. |
Pulos and Leng, 2010 [27] | Cross-sectional (pre-post comparison) | 16000 | Restaurant (other) | USA | 2.00 ± 1.09 | Nutritional labelling was added in a restaurant. Entrée sales from 30 days before and 30 days after implementation were used for comparison. |
Roberto et al., 2010 [28] | RCT | 303 | Restaurant (other) | USA | 11.3 ± 5.34 | Experimental subjects were given a label with calorie information while the control group was given a normal menu. Calorie intake was compared between the groups. |
Shimizu et al., 2010 [29] | RCT | 122 | Laboratory | USA | 21.7 ± 10.5 | Presentational cues were used to indicate either a “meal” or a “snack” condition, and intake compared between control and experimental groups. |
Wisdom et al., 2010 [30] - A | RCT | 290 | Restaurant (fast-food) | USA | 5.80 ± 4.31 | Calories were added to fast-food restaurant menus and average calorie intake per purchase compared between control and experimental groups. |
Wisdom et al., 2010 [30] - B | RCT | 342 | Restaurant (fast-food) | USA | 9.00 ± 7.64 | In the experimental group, selection of unhealthy items was made less convenient by adding a step to the ordering process and moving them to the second page of the menu. |
Chu et al., 2009 [31] | Cross-sectional (pre-post comparison) | 13951 | Canteen | USA | 1.98 ± 0.14 | Calorie information was posted in a workplace canteen. Calorie content of meals was calculated from sales data before and after calorie posting. |
Gerend, 2009 [32] | RCT | 288 | Laboratory | USA | 5.54 ± 5.52 | In the experimental group, subjects received a menu with calorie information, while the control group received a regular menu. Calories per meal requested were compared between groups. |
Kelly et al., 2009 [33] | RCT | 43 | Laboratory | UK (Northern Ireland) | 11.7 ± 7.97 | Portion size was randomly varied over four days in the lab and consumption measured and compared between conditions. |
Stroebele et al., 2009 [34] | RCT | 59 | Laboratory | USA | 44.8 ± 2.68 | Subjects randomly received snack packs of different sizes for a week. Consumption measured and compared between groups. |
Ueland et al., 2009 [35] | RCT | 33 | Laboratory | USA | 7.17 ± 17.3 | Subjects were told that they had received a standard portion or a larger portion, though in fact the amounts were the same. Consumption measured and compared between conditions. |
Viskaal-van Dongen et al., 2009 [36] | RCT | 51 | Laboratory | Netherlands | 36.8 ± 2.13 | Foods with similar caloric content and either hidden or visible fat were presented and consumption measured and compared. |
Bodor et al., 2008 [37] | Cross-sectional (internal comparison) | 102 | Neighbour-hood | USA | 35.7 ± 1.73 | Household survey regarding healthy food consumption. Groups were compared based on their proximity to a local grocery store. |
Raynor and Wing, 2007 [38] - A | RCT | 28 | Home | USA | 44.7 ± 2.68 | Portion size adjusted and consumption measured and compared between groups. |
Raynor and Wing, 2007 [38] - B | RCT | 28 | Home | USA | 6.43 ± 32.2 | Size of individual foot unit adjusted and consumption measured and compared between conditions. |
Rolls et al., 2007 [39] (1) | RCT | 23 | Home | USA | 14.6 ± 2.49 | Portion size adjusted and consumption measured and compared between groups |
Rolls et al., 2007 [40] (2) | RCT | 119 | Laboratory | USA | 2.62 ± 1.85 | Size of plate used was changed between control and experimental conditions, while the amount of food was held constant. Consumption was measured and compared between groups. |
Antonuk and Block, 2006 [41] | RCT | 67 | Laboratory | USA | 37.0 ± 18.2 | Subjects were given snack food with randomly varying nutritional labelling. Their consumption was measured and compared. |
Wansink et al., 2006 [42] - A | RCT | 85 | Laboratory | USA | 12.6 ± 11.9 | Larger serving utensils were used in the experimental group and consumption measured and compared. |
Wansink et al., 2006 [42] - B | RCT | 85 | Laboratory | USA | 23.6 ± 15.3 | Larger bowls but identical serving sizes were used in the experimental group and consumption measured and compared. |
Hetherington et al., 2006 [43] - A | RCT | 37 | Laboratory | UK (England) | 11.2 ± 2.82 | Subjects ate a meal either in the company of friends or of strangers. Consumption in the two conditions was compared. |
Hetherington et al., 2006 [43] - B | RCT | 37 | Laboratory | UK (England) | 15.4 ± 2.82 | Subjects ate a meal either while watching TV or while alone. Consumption in the two conditions was compared. |
Huang et al., 2006 [44] | RCT | 456 | Online | Australia | 0.620 ± 0.165 | Availability of healthier options in online supermarket was adjusted. Change in sales of healthy items was compared. |
Norton et al., 2006 [12] | RCT | 30 | Laboratory | UK (England) | 13.7 ± 4.02 | Sandwiches were provided either with a variety of fillings or with a homogenous filling, though energy content was constant. Calorie intake was measured and compared. |
Wansink and Kim, 2005 [45] | RCT | 72 | Movie Theatre | USA | 31.2 ± 10.2 | Popcorn in a movie theatre was sold in containers of various sizes. Consumption was measured and compared. |
Wansink et al., 2005 [46] | RCT | 54 | Canteen | USA | 42.2 ± 18.8 | Experimental subjects were unknowingly given self-refilling bowls to make second helpings more convenient. Consumption was measured and compared. |
Devitt and Mattes, 2004 [47] | RCT | 20 | Laboratory | USA | 6.04 ± 5.70 | Food unit size was randomly adjusted on four separate days. Consumption was measured and compared. |
Diliberti et al., 2004 [48] | RCT | 180 | Canteen | USA | 20.2 ± 0.567 | Portion size of canteen entrées randomly varied in a workplace canteen. Sales data used to calculate energy content of meals. |
Levitsky and Youn, 2004 [49] | RCT | 13 | Canteen | USA | 23.6 ± 2.42 | Portion size of canteen entrées randomly adjusted. Consumption measured and compared between conditions. |
Rolls et al., 2004 [50] (1) | RCT | 60 | Laboratory | USA | 12.1 ± 1.70 | Subjects were given snacks of differing portion sizes. Consumption between control and experimental groups compared. |
Rolls et al., 2004 [51] (2) | Cohort | 75 | Laboratory | USA | 44.7 ± 1.90 | Over four weeks, subjects were given sandwiches of varying sizes at a once weekly lab lunch. Consumption between conditions compared. |
Steenhuis et al., 2004 [52] - A | Cross-sectional (pre-post comparison) | 290 | Canteen | Netherlands | −4.51 ± 8.92 | In a workplace canteen, availability of healthy options was increased or held constant at seventeen worksites that were randomly assigned. Sales were used to calculate calorie content of meals and compared between conditions. |
Steenhuis et al., 2004 [52] - B | Cross-sectional (pre-post comparison) | 215 | Canteen | Netherlands | −8.05 ± 9.98 | At 17 randomly assigned worksites, healthy items were given additional labelling or left in original state. Sales were used to calculate calorie content of meals and compared between conditions. |