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.