From: A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices
First author (year) | Country | Study design and setting | Population | Analysis |
---|---|---|---|---|
Choice experiments | ||||
Aschemann-Witzel (2010) [28] | Germany. | Repeated measures: non-hypothetical choice/purchase simulation. Conducted in a laboratory. | 220 consumers. | Chi-squared test (proportion chosen carrying claim vs overall proportion not carrying claims). |
Aschemann-Witzel (2013) [29] | Germany. | Repeated measures: realistic purchase simulation. Conducted in a laboratory. | 210 consumers. | One-sample T-tests: (proportion chosen carrying claim vs overall proportion not carrying claims). |
De Marchi (2016) [45] | USA. | Repeated measures: price (4 levels) x calories (3 levels) x health claim (with/without) x organic claim (with/without) x carbon trust logo (with/without). Online choice experiment. | 173 primary food shoppers and consumers of yogurt. | Random parameter logit with an error component model. |
De-Magistris (2016) [36] | Spain. | Repeated measures: price (4 levels) x nutrient claim (absent, reduced fat claim, low salt claim). Setting unclear, conducted in-person, participants seated individually. | 217 primary food shoppers. | Random Parameters Logit (RPL) model. |
Fernández-Polanco (2013) [37] | Spain. | Repeated measures: price (4 levels) x origin (2 levels) x harvest method (2 levels) x sustainability (2 levels) x health claim (2 levels) x safety (2 levels). | 169 participants. | Heteroscedastic logit model. |
Gracia (2009) [38] | Spain. | Repeated measures: price (2 levels) x brand (2 levels) x nutritional information panel (2 levels x claim (2 levels). | 400 food shoppers. | Logit model. |
Krystallis (2012) [42] | Greece. | Repeated measures: product type (2 levels) x claims (5 levels) x flavour (2 levels) x price (3 levels). | 140 participants. | Heteroscedastic extreme value (HEV) model. |
Van Wezemael (2014) [54] | Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and the UK. | Mixed design: between groups (nutrition or health & nutrition claim exposure), within group (claim, no claim) x price (4 levels). Conducted online. | 2400 beef consumers, 600 participants from; the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the UK. | Multinomial logit (MNL) model, error component (EC) logit model. |
Ares (2010) [27] | Uruguay. | Repeated measures: type of yogurt (3 levels) x brand (3 levels) x price (3 levels) x claim (with/without). | 104 yogurt consumers. | Multinomial logit model (MNL). MNL used to estimate part-worth utilities. |
Barreiro-Hurle (2010) [30] | Spain. | Repeated measures: price (4 levels) x nutrition labelformats (2 levels) x claims (1 nutrient comparison, 1 disease reduction). | 800 participants, consumers of sausages and yoghurt. | Random Parameters Logit (RPL) model. |
Casini (2014) [33] | Italy. | Repeated measures: certification (4 levels) x site of production (4 levels) x health claim - (4 levels including no claim) x price (4 levels). Online survey. | 260 Italian consumers. | Latent class choice model. |
Contini (2015) [35] | Denmark and Italy. | Repeated measures: price (4 levels) x origin/site of production (4 levels) x health claim (8 levels −3 relevant to Review). | 2024 participants, 51% Denmark, 49% Italy. | Latent class model. Cluster analysis: 8-class model. |
Loose (2013) [44] | Australia. | Repeated measures: 8 attributes (levels ranging from 2 to 8): incl. Price (4 levels) and claims (3 levels). Conducted online. | 1718 seafood consumers. | Scale adjusted latent class model.Aggregated multinominal logit model |
McLean (2012) [47] | New Zealand. | Repeated measures: 4 factorial design: brand (3 levels) x FOP label (3 levels) x claim (3 levels) x sodium content (2 levels). Screen-based. | 500 participants with hypertension, 191 participants without hypertension. | Multinominal logit regression model |
Mohebalian (2012) [48] | USA. | Repeated measures: juice type (3 levels) x origin (3 levels) x health claim (2 levels) x price (continuous). Online survey. | 508 participants. | Conditional logistic regression. |
Mohebalian (2013) [49] | USA. | Repeated measures: fruit type x price x product origin, x health claim. Online survey. | 1043 participants. Study 1: 535 participants. Study 2: 508 participants. | Conditional logit regression. |
Experiments - purchase data | ||||
Kiesel (2013) [39] | USA. | Five differentiated labelling treatments over a period of four weeks in each of five supermarkets, targeting microwave popcorn products. | Supermarket details: five treatment stores. | Summary statistics and difference-in-differences. |
Experiments - measured consumption | ||||
Roberto (2012) [52] | USA. | Randomised controlled experiment, between groups design (no label, Smart choices, a modified SC symbol with serving size). Conducted in a laboratory. | 243 participants. | One-way ANOVA (continuous variables). Chi-squared tests (categorical outcomes). |
Belei (2012) [31] | The Netherlands. | Randomised controlled experiment, between groups design, 3 conditions (incl. With/without claim). | 109 undergraduate students. | ANOVA. |
Carbonneau (2015) [32] | Canada. | Randomised controlled experiment, between groups design, 3 conditions (low fat, energy, no claim), take home meals. | 160 women. | Mixed models for repeated measures used to compare impact of the experimental labelling groups on mean daily energy intake. |
Koenigstorfer (2013) [40] | Germany. | Study 2: 1 factorial experiment (with claim/without) but without being made aware of perceived serving size and not observed by interviewer, conducted in a University. | Study 2: 135 students. | ANOVA. |
Steenhuis (2010) [53] | The Netherlands. | Repeated measures: two conditions: with claim/without claim, 1 week washout period between. Conducted in a University. | 31 female participants from the University community. | Paired sample t-tests. |
Wansink (2006) [14] | USA. | Study 1: Between groups design (with claim/without), conducted during a University open day. Study 3: Between groups design (2 (regular versus low-fat label) × 3 (no serving label, “Contains 1 Serving” label, “Contains 2 Servings” label). Conducted in a cinema. | Study 1: 269 participants, students and their families visiting food science and human nutrition open day, aged 18 < .Study 3: 210 university staff, undergraduates, and graduate students. | ANCOVAs: consumption by label type (low fat versus regular). |
Experiment (rating based) | ||||
Ares (2008) [25] | Uruguay. | Repeated measures, factorial experimental design (4 × 4), resulting in a set of 16 food concepts. | 104 participants. | ANOVA. |
Ares (2009) [26] | Uruguay. | Repeated measures: three categorical factors: type of functional ingredient (2 levels) x name of the ingredient (2 levels) x claim (3 levels - No claim, ‘Enhanced function’ claim, ‘Reduced disease risk’ claim). | 83 participants. | ANOVA. |
Coleman (2014) [34] | UK. | Repeated measures, online survey. | 122 volunteers. | ANOVA with a Bonferroni post-hoc test. |
Kozup (2003) [41] | USA. | Between subjects design: 2 (heart-healthy, no claim) ×3 (nutrition information level with control). Mail survey. | 147 participants, primary shoppers of household. | Multivariate and univariate |
Lin (2015) [43] | Taiwan. | Between subjects design: randomly assigned to with or without claim. | 300 students and office workers | ANOVA. |
Maubach (2014) [46] | New Zealand. | Repeated measures: 4 FOP summary indicators, ×3 nutrition profile levels, × 3 product claim levels (no claim, nutrient-content, health claim), ×4 flavours. Conducted online. | 768 participants. | Odds ratio. |
Moon (2011) [50] | USA. | Between subjects design, randomly assigned to treatment: (1) FDA permitted health claims (2) same claim without FDA approval (3) no information. Online survey. | 3456 participants. | Logistic regression, t-test. |
Orquin (2015) [51] | Denmark. | Between subjects design, realistic product photographs shown 1 at a time. | STUDY 3: 204 participants, recruited online. | Linear regression. |