Skip to main content

Table 2 Overview of each study included in the review

From: Systematic review of the impact of nutrition claims related to fat, sugar and energy content on food choices and energy intake

Authors, Year Setting Country Population (sample size, n) Food category Type of claim Outcome areas of focus
Chan et al., 2005 [31] Content analysis of transcript AU 20–80 y/o (36) • Any food • Low-fat • Food intake
• Purchases
Bialkova et al., 2016 [32] Experimental DE 18–64 y/o (240) • Chipsa
• Cerealsa
• 30% less fat (chips)
• 30% less sugar (cereals) vs. no claim
• Experienced tastiness
• Purchase intentions
Mai & Hoffmann, 2015
(study 3) [33]
Experimental DE av. 21.3 y/o (475) • Yogurtb • Reduced-fat
• Reduced-sugar vs. Regular
• Health consciousness
• Perceived healthfulness
• Experienced tastiness
• Purchase intentions
Roefs & Jansen 2004 [34] Experimental NL women (44) • Milkshakea • Low-fat vs. High-fat • Food intake
Faulkner et al., 2014 [35] Experimental UK av. 26 y/o
21–44 y/o (186)
• Coleslaw • Reduced-fat vs. Standard • Perceived appropriate portion size
• Perceived energy content
Norton et al., 2013 [36] Experimental UK av. 24.3 y/o
18–60 y/o (87)
• Milk chocolatea • Reduced-fat vs. no claim • Perceived tastiness
• Experienced tastiness
Andrews et al., 2009 [37] Experimental US 18+ y/o (480) • Chocolate • Half-the-fat
• Half-the-calories vs. no claim
• Perceived healthfulness
Belei, et al., 2012
(study 1) [38]
Experimental US undergraduate students (109) • Chocolatea • Low-fat vs. Regular • Food intake
Ebneter et al., 2013 [39] Experimental US women
av. 20.86 y/o (175)
• M&M's.a • Low-fat vs. Regular • Perceived energy content
• Perceived healthfulness
Wansink & Chandon, 2006
(study 2) [40]
Experimental US av. 38 y/o (74) • M&M's.
• Granola bara
• Low-fat vs. Regular • Perceived appropriate portion size
• Perceived energy content
• Consumption guilt
• Weight status
Wansink & Chandon, 2006
(study 1) [40]
Real-word setting US 18+ y/o (269) • M&M's.a • Low-fat vs. Regular • Food intake
• Weight status
  1. aNo difference between the food products: the study used similar products with the same food composition
  2. bActual difference between the food products: the study used products with different food composition corresponding to the nutrition claim
  3. AU Australia, CA Canada, DE Germany, NL The Netherlands, UK The United Kingdom, US The United States of America, y/o years old, av. average, vs. versus