Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of “Place”, “Product”, “Prescriptive” and “Promotion” interventions

From: Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact

Author

Study

Setting

Intervention

Quality

Outcome measured

SEP measurement

Effect on SEP inequalities

Place

Campbell [43]

RCT

USA

Church based intervention

5

Mean change in portions of fruit and vegetables consumed

Household income

↔*

Hughes [ 46 ]

Cross sectional survey

England

School based intervention

4

Change in portions of fruit and vegetables consumed

Index of Multiple Deprivation

↓*

Rush [ 48 ]

RCT

New Zealand

School based intervention

3

Change in BMI standard deviation score in 5–7 year olds

Household income

↔*

Sorenson [ 44 ]

RCT

USA

Work based intervention

5

% change in those achieving 5 a day

Occupation

↓*

Sorenson [ 45 ]

RCT

USA

Work based intervention

5

Change in geometric mean grams of fibre per 1000 kcals

Occupation

↓*

Wendel-Vos [ 47 ]

Cohort study

Holland

Area based intervention

4

Difference in mean energy intake between intervention and control (MJ/d)

Education level

↓*

Product

       

Millet [ 49 ]

Observational study

England

Salt reformulation

3

Salt intake (g/d)

Social class

↔*

Prescriptive

No studies were identified examining the potential SEP differentials effects of restrictions on advertising/marketing through controls or bans; labelling, recommendations or guidelines

Promotion

Cappacci [ 50 ]

Modelling study

UK

Health information campaign (5 a day)

2

Change in fruit and vegetable intake (portions)

Household income

↓*

Dallongeville [ 35 ]

Modelling study

France

Health information campaign (fruit and vegetable promotion)

2

Change in fruit and vegetable consumption (g/d)

Household income

↔*

Estaquio [ 51 ]

Cohort study

France

Health information campaign (5 a day)

2

% of males consuming ≥ five portions of fruit and vegetable per day

Education level

↑*

Stables [ 52 ]

Cross sectional survey

USA

Health information campaign (5 a day)

2

Change in portions of fruit and vegetables consumed

Poverty Index Ratio

↔*

  1. Quality of empirical studies were assessed using a validated tool [27]. Studies were scored against six criteria and this number was summed to give an overall quality score (maximum of six). The modelling studies were assessed for quality by two independent experts and their scores were converted into a score out of six to allow comparison.
  2. the effect on inequalities is displayed symbolically in the table as: ↓ for an Intervention likely to reduce inequalities: the intervention preferentially improved healthy eating outcomes in people of lower SEP, ↑ for an intervention likely to widen inequalities: the intervention preferentially improved healthy eating outcomes in people of higher SEP, and ↔ for an intervention which had no preferential impact by SEP.
  3. *indicates interventions where statistical significance values were given to the quantitative evidence relevant to our review.