Reference | Design and Presence of Comparison Group | Intervention/Measures | Setting | Number of Subjects/Restaurants | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Real world setting | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Elbel et al. (2011) [17] | Natural experiment, pre/post intervention comparison and with matched community | Calorie labels added to chain restaurant labels in New York City. Survey administered outside fast food restaurants. | New York City and Newark, NJ (as comparator). Fast food restaurants in low-income neighborhoods | 349 children and adolescents | Mean calories purchased in NYC pre and post labeling 643 v 652 (p = 0.82), Newark 611 v 673 (p = 0.37). |
Elbel et al. (2009) [18] | Natural experiment, pre/post intervention comparison and with matched community | Calorie labels added to chain restaurant labels in New York City. Survey administered outside fast food restaurants. | New York City and Newark, NJ (as comparator). Fast food restaurants in low-income neighborhoods | 1156 adults over 18 | Regression-Adjusted nutrient content in NYC and Newark before and after with 95% CI. NYC: 825 (779, 870) post 846 (758, 889). Newark 823 (802, 890) post 826 (746, 906). |
Finkelstein et al. (2011) [19] | Natural experiment, pre/post intervention comparison with matched communities | Calorie labels added to chain restaurant labels in King County, WA, then drive-thru lanes. Total monthly transactions and calories per transaction. | King County, WA and several stores from surrounding area | 21 randomly selected Taco Time locations and 7 locations outside King County | Calories per transaction King County pre-period: 1,211 v post-period 1: 1,217 v post-period 2: 1,214. Calories per transaction Control pre-period: 1,391 v. post-period 1: 1,392 v post-period 2: 1,376. |
Chu et al. (2009) [6] | Quasi-experimental, single group interrupted time series | Calorie labels added to entrees in college dining hall. Used electronic sales data to track calories of entrees sold. | Dining hall, Ohio State University | NA | Calories per entrée sold at pre 645.5, First day of tx period -12.4 (p = 0.007), decreased of 0.298 calories/day), post treatment increases 1.512/day |
Dumanovsky et al. (2011) [16] | Cross sectional surveys pre/post calorie menu label implementation | Calorie labels added to chain restaurant labels in New York City. Survey administered outside fast food restaurants. | New York City fast food chains | 7309 adult customers in 2007 and 8489 in 2009, 168 locations of 11 fast food chains | No change in mean calories purchased overall chains from 2007 to 2009, 828 v 846 kcal (p = 0.22). Three chains show reduction in mean calories per purchase: McDonalds (829 v 786, p < 0.02), Au Bon Pain (555 v 475, p < 0.001), KFC (927 v 882 kcal, p < 0.001). One chain significant increase: Subway (749 v 882, p < 0.001). |
Laboratory setting | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Harnack et al. (2008) [20] | Non-blinded randomized controlled trial | Order from 4 menu labeling conditions, control that lists items with standard pricing, Item + Calorie menu, Item + Non-value menu pricing, Calorie + Non-Value menu pricing. Measured calories ordered and calories consumed | Conference room of suburban hotel and church basement in Minneapolis St. Paul, MN | 594 adolescents and adults 16 or older | Mean calories ordered: Calorie 873.6, Price 881.7, Calorie+Price 842.3, Control 827.5 (p = 0.62); Mean calories consumed: Calorie 804.7 Price 813.3 Calorie+Price 761.0 Control 739.0 (p = 0.25) |
Roberto et al. (2010) [21] | Non-blinded randomized controlled trial | Participants order from 3 menu labeling conditions, one that lists the items, one that lists items and calories, one that lists items, calories and daily guideline calories. Measured calories ordered and calories consumed | Laboratory in New Haven, CT | 303 adults 18 and older | Mean calories ordered: Control 2189, label condition 1862 (p = 0.03), label + info condition (1860, p = 0.03), no significant difference between two label conditions. No significant difference in calories consumed overall (p = 0.12). |