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.