Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of “Person” 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

Brownson [ 62 ]

Cross sectional survey

USA

Health education: Community based education

3

% change of the % of people who consume five portions of fruit and vegetables per day

Education level

Burgi [ 53 ]

RCT

Switzerland

Health education: Healthy nutrition program aimed at children

5

Mean BMI (kg/m2)

Parental education level

↔*

Carcaise-Edinboro [ 63 ]

RCT

USA

Health education: Tailored feedback and self-help dietary intervention.

5

Mean fruit and veg intake score (Score out of 3, 3 = less F/V intake, 1 = more F/V intake)

Education level

↓*

Connett [ 64 ]

RCT

USA

Dietary counselling intervention

3

Change in serum cholesterol (mg/dl)

Household income

Curtis [ 54 ]

Randomised parallel groups comparison study

UK

Health education: Cooking fair with cooking lessons accompanying personalised dietary goal settings

3

% change in mean food energy from fat

Quintile of Deprivation Index

↓*

Friel [ 55 ]

RCT

Republic of Ireland

Health education: Healthy nutrition program aimed at children (“Hearty heart”)

2

Change in % of children consuming >4 portions of fruit and veg per day

Area level deprivation

↔*

Haerens [ 56 ]

RCT

Belgium

Health education: adapted computer tailored dietary intervention for children.

4

Change in mean dietary fat intake (g/d)

Education level

↔*

Havas [ 65 ]

RCT

USA

Health education: Healthy nutrition program aimed at adult women

5

Change in mean daily servings consumed of fruit and vegetables

Education level

↑*

Havas [ 66 ]

RCT

USA

Dietary counselling intervention

5

% change in fruit and vegetables consumed

Education level

↑*

Holme [ 57 ]

RCT

Norway

Dietary counselling intervention

5

% change in cholesterol

Social class

Jeffery [ 67 ]

RCT

USA

Health education: Community based education

3

Mean weight change in women (lb)

Household income

↔*

Health education: Community based education with an additional prize lottery

↔*

Jouret [ 58 ]

RCT

France

Health education: Healthy nutrition program aimed at children

4

Change in % of children overweight

Area level deprivation

↓*

Lowe [ 59 ]

Cohort study

UK

Health education: Healthy nutrition program aimed at children

3

% change in vegetables observed consumed

Free school meal entitlement

Plachta-Danielzik [ 60 ]

RCT

Germany

Health education: Healthy nutrition program aimed at children

5

Change in % prevalence of overweight

Parental education level

↑*

Reynolds [ 68 ]

RCT

USA

Health education: Healthy nutrition program aimed at children

3

Portions of fruit and vegetables consumed

Household income

↑*

Smith [ 69 ]

RCT

Australia

Health education: Healthy nutrition program aimed at adults

4

Change in fat density consumed (g/4200 kcal)

The Daniel Scale of Occupational Prestige

Toft [ 61 ]

RCT

Denmark

Dietary counselling intervention

4

Change in amount of fruit eaten by men (g/week)

Education level

↑*

  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.