Tamaño de la porción, el envase o la vajilla para el cambio de selección y consumo de alimentos, bebidas alcohólicas y tabaco
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011045.pub2Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 14 septiembre 2015see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Salud pública
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.
- This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
Draft the protocol ‐ all authors
Develop a search strategy ‐ GJH, IS
Search for trials ‐ GJH, IS
Obtain copies of trials ‐ GJH, IS
Select which studies to include ‐ GJH, IS, DO
Extract data from studies ‐ GJH, IS, HBL, YW, JPTH
Enter data into RevMan ‐ GJH, IS
Carry out the analysis ‐ YW, JPTH, IS, GJH
Interpret the analysis ‐ all authors
Draft the final review ‐ all authors
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
Kings College London, UK.
Database access
-
University of Cambridge, UK.
Computer provision, database access
-
University of East Anglia, UK.
Database access
-
University of Bristol, UK.
Computer provision
-
Plymouth University, UK.
Computer provision
External sources
-
Funded by UK Department of Health Policy Research Programme (107/0001‐ Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health), UK.
-
YW was supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) grant to the MRC Clinical Trials Unit Hub for Trials Methodology Research [Grant number MSA7355QP21], UK.
Declarations of interest
Gareth Hollands declares no financial or other conflicts of interest.
Ian Shemilt declares no financial or other conflicts of interest.
Theresa Marteau declares no financial or other conflicts of interest.
Susan Jebb is Chair of the Public Health Responsibility Deal Food Network, which develops voluntary agreements with industry to improve health, including reductions in portion size of foods high in fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt. She has also led research projects in which foods have been provided by a range of commercial companies as part of dietary intervention studies funded by public bodies. She was also a co‐author of a published study (completed 2010) funded by the Coca‐Cola Institute for Health & Wellness, which showed no effect on weight loss of a putative functional beverage.
Hannah Lewis declares no financial or other conflicts of interest.
Yinghui Wei declares no financial or other conflicts of interest.
Julian Higgins declares no financial or other conflicts of interest.
David Ogilvie declares no financial or other conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
Production of this Cochrane review was funded by the UK Department of Health Policy Research Programme (107/0001‐Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK Department of Health. We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Julie Glanville (York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, UK) who reviewed a draft of our MEDLINE search strategy, Claire Stansfield (EPPI‐Centre, University of London, UK) who helped to develop and ran our searches of the TRoPHI database, and Helen Morgan (TSC, Cochrane Public Health Review Group) who initially reviewed our overall search strategy. We would like to thank Jodie Doyle (Managing Editor), Liz Waters (Co‐ordinating Editor) and their colleagues in the Cochrane Public Health Review Group ‐ especially Jonathan Shepherd (our Contact Editor), Anke Rowher (Methods Advisor), Ruth Turley (Author) and Daniel Francis (Editor). We also greatly appreciated input from Sadequa Shahrook (Research Fellow, Department of Health Policy ,National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan) and anonymous external referees who provided helpful comments on the penultimate and final draft full review, as well as other editors, peer reviewers and critical friends who have provided helpful feedback at various stages. Finally, we would like to acknowledge all the authors of included studies who responded to our requests for clarifications or data ‐ especially those who responded with respect to several included studies.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2015 Sep 14 | Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco | Review | Gareth J Hollands, Ian Shemilt, Theresa M Marteau, Susan A Jebb, Hannah B Lewis, Yinghui Wei, Julian P T Higgins, David Ogilvie | |
| 2014 Apr 01 | Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco | Protocol | Gareth J Hollands, Ian Shemilt, Theresa M Marteau, Susan A Jebb, Hannah B Lewis, Yinghui Wei, Julian PT Higgins, David Ogilvie | |
Differences between protocol and review
A difference between the protocol (Hollands 2014) and review is that the proposed search of the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register was not, in practice, conducted. This omission is unlikely to have had any impact on the review. Study records on the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register are submitted for inclusion in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on a quarterly basis and we conducted searches of CENTRAL for this review up to 30 January 2015. Also, at the protocol stage, we intended to use the most commonly available measure of participants' socioeconomic status to construct the socioeconomic status context variable (see Data extraction and management). We were unable to do this in practice because no single proxy measure of participants' socioeconomic status, such as education or income, was commonly measured in and reported by included studies. Therefore we instead coded a binary study‐level covariate based on authors' explicit descriptors of the study sample and/or setting (e.g. "Low income Hispanic or non‐Hispanic African American children and their mothers", or "Faculty, graduate students, and staff members of the Department of Food Science and Nutritional Science of a large Midwestern university". Unless explicitly described as being of low socioeconomic status, we coded the context of included studies as high socioeconomic status.
Notes
From the author team, 10 October, 2018, in response to recent retraction of several studies by Brian Wansink
On the 19th September 2018, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine and JAMA Pediatrics retracted six articles on which Brian Wansink (John Dyson Professor of Marketing at Cornell University), was an author (https://media.jamanetwork.com/news‐item/jama‐network‐retracts‐6‐articles‐that‐included‐dr‐brian‐wansink‐as‐author/). Given seven previous retractions, this means that 13 of his articles have been retracted as of 10th October 2018 (http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx#?auth%3dWansink). The retracted articles are listed at the end of this note.
None of the 13 retracted articles authored by Wansink were included in this Cochrane review (one was excluded due to ineligible study design). The results and conclusions of the review are therefore not affected.
Other articles on which Wansink is an author, and which have not been retracted, were included in this review. It includes 72 studies, of which 13 studies were authored by Wansink.
The effects reported in this review are uncertain, attributable in part to evidence that is at significant risk of bias with, at best, GRADE ratings of ‘moderate’ (meaning that further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in estimated effects). These retractions do, however, introduce additional uncertainty regarding the veracity of other studies Wansink has authored, including those contributing to this review. Should any study included in this review be retracted, we will withdraw that study’s data from updated meta‐analyses conducted as part of future updates of this Cochrane review.
Gareth Hollands and Theresa Marteau, on behalf of the author team
Retracted studies (as of 10th October 2018)
Wansink B, Tal A, Shimizu M (2012). First foods most: after 18‐hour fast, people drawn to starches first and vegetables last. Arch Intern Med. 172(12): 961‐963.
Tal A, Wansink B (2013). Fattening fasting: hungry grocery shoppers buy more calories, not more food. JAMA Intern Med. 173(12): 1146‐1148.
Tal A, Zuckerman S, Wansink B (2014). Watch what you eat: action‐related television content increases food intake. JAMA Intern Med. 174(11): 1842‐1843.
Wansink B, Cheney MM (2005). Super Bowls: serving bowl size and food consumption. JAMA. 293(14): 1727‐1728.
Wansink B, Payne C, Werle C (2008). Consequences of belonging to the “clean plate club”. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 162(10): 994‐995.
Hanks AS, Just DR, Wansink B (2013). Preordering school lunch encourages better food choices by children. JAMA Pediatr. 167(7): 673‐674.
Vuorinen A‐L, Strahilevitz MA, Wansink B, Safer DL (2017). Shifts in the Enjoyment of Healthy and Unhealthy Behaviors Affect Short‐ and Long‐Term Postbariatric Weight Loss. Bariatric Surgical Practice and Patient Care. 12(1): 35–42.
Wansink B, Just DR, Payne CR, Klinger MZ (2012). Attractive names sustain increased vegetable intake in schools. Prev Med. 55(4):330‐332.
Wansink B, Westgren R (2003). Profiling taste‐motivated segments. Appetite. 41(3): 323‐7.
Sigirci O, Rockmore M, Wansink B (2016). How Traumatic Violence Permanently Changes Shopping Behavior. Front. Psychol. 7:1298.
Sigirci O, Wansink B (2015). Low prices and high regret: how pricing influences regret at all‐you‐can‐eat buffets. BMC Nutrition 1:36.
Wansink B, Park S‐B (2002). Sensory Suggestiveness and Labeling: Do Soy Labels Bias Taste? Journal of Sensory Studies. 17(5): 483‐491.
Wansink B, Just DR, Payne CR (2012). Can Branding Improve School Lunches? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 166(10): 967‐968.
Keywords
MeSH
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Adult; Child; Humans;
PICO
Final conceptual model. The 28 constructs included in the provisional conceptual model (Hollands 2014) and retained in this final version are shown in plain type. The 22 constructs added to this final conceptual model based on theory and evidence encountered during the review process are shown in red type. The 2 constructs included in the provisional conceptual model (Hollands 2014) but excluded from this final version are shown in strikethrough plain type. See Table 1 for a full record of the conceptual model development process.
PRISMA study flow diagram.
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all eligible studies (N = 83. 'Risk of bias' assessments completed for 72 eligible studies included in the review. White spaces in the bars of this graph denote the respective proportions of the 72 included studies that did not measure (i) selection or (ii) consumption outcomes. See also Results of the search and Figure 2).
Effect sizes re‐expressed using familiar metrics
Forest plot of the standardised mean difference in unregulated consumption of food or tobacco between participants exposed to larger (intervention) versus smaller (control) sized portions, packages, individual units and/or tableware
Assessing publication bias. Funnel plots including all studies reporting the selection outcome (left) and consumption outcome (right) do not show asymmetry (Egger test P value = 0.20 and P value = 0.18 respectively)
Summary effect sizes (standardised mean differences) in subgroups of studies (consumption outcome)
Bubble plots. Fitted meta‐regression lines showing associations between study‐level effect sizes for consumption and study characteristics (continuous variables) identified as effect modifiers: a) FSA score; b) energy density; c) age.
Forest plot of the standardised mean difference in unregulated selection (without purchase) of food between participants exposed to larger (intervention) versus smaller (control) sized portions, packages and/or tableware
Summary effect sizes (standardised mean differences) in subgroups of studies (selection outcome)
Forest plot of the standardised mean difference in unregulated selection without purchase of fruit juices or water between participants exposed to shorter, wider (intervention) versus taller, narrower (control) empty glasses or plastic bottles
| Food: Larger versus smaller‐sized portions, packages or tableware for changing quantity consumed or selected | ||||||
| Population: children and adults | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of participants | Quality of the evidence | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Smaller‐sized portion, package, individual unit or item of tableware | Larger‐sized portion, package, individual unit or item of tableware | |||||
| Consumption | Mean daily energy intake from food among a representative sample of UK children and adults is 1689 kcal3 | Mean daily energy intake from food would be 189 kcal (11.2%) higher with the intervention (144 to 228 kcal higher) among UK children and adults | Mean consumption in the intervention group was 0.38 standard deviations higher (0.29 higher to 0.46 higher) | 6603 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | |
| ‐ Consumption among children | Mean daily energy intake from food among a representative sample of UK children is 1651 kcal3 | Mean daily energy intake from food would be 95 kcal (5.7%) higher with the intervention (45 to 140 kcal higher) among UK children | Mean consumption in the intervention group was 0.21 standard deviations higher (0.1 higher to 0.31 higher) | 1421 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | |
| ‐ Consumption among adults | Mean daily energy intake from food among a representative sample of UK adults is 1727 kcal3 | Mean daily energy intake from food would be 247 kcal (14.3%) higher with the intervention (215 to 279 kcal higher) among UK adults | Mean consumption in the intervention group was 0.46 standard deviations higher (0.40 higher to 0.52 higher) | 5182 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | |
| Selection without purchase | Mean daily energy intake from food among a representative sample of UK children and adults is 1689 kcal3 | Mean daily energy intake from food would be 209 kcal (12.4%) higher with the intervention (119 to 293 kcal higher) among UK children and adults4 | Mean selection without purchase in the intervention group was 0.42 standard deviations higher (0.24 higher to 0.59 higher) | 1164 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | |
| ‐ Selection without purchase among children | Mean daily energy intake from food among a representative sample of UK children is 1651 kcal3 | Mean daily energy intake from food would be 63 kcal (3.8%) higher with the intervention (27 to 153 kcal higher) among UK children4 | Mean selection without purchase in the intervention group was 0.14 standard deviations higher (0.06 lower to 0.34 higher) | 382 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | |
| ‐ Selection without purchase among adults | Mean daily energy intake from food among a representative sample of UK adults is 1727 kcal3 | Mean daily energy intake from food would be 188 kcal (10.9%) higher with the intervention (188 to 403 kcal higher) among UK adults4 | Mean selection without purchase in the intervention group was 0.55 standard deviations higher (0.35 higher to 0.75 higher) | 782 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in representative UK samples3 and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | ||||||
| 1Rated down by one level for study limitations: we assessed risk of bias as unclear or high in all incorporated studies. 2Rated down by one level for imprecision: number of participants (effective sample size) incorporated into analysis is less than the number of patients generated by a conventional sample size calculation for a single adequately powered trial (optimal information size) and the confidence interval crosses zero. 3Estimates of means and standard deviations based on an unweighted analysis of data from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey, Years 1‐4 (National Centre for Social Research 2012) ‐ see Data synthesis. 4Illustration of equivalent absolute effect on daily energy intake from food assumes that all foods selected are consumed. | ||||||
| Alcohol: Larger versus smaller‐sized portions, packages or tableware for changing quantity consumed or selected | ||||||
| Population: children and adults | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of participants | Quality of the evidence | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Smaller‐sized portion, package, individual unit or item of tableware | Larger‐sized portion, package, individual unit or item of tableware | |||||
| Consumption | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ Consumption among children | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ Consumption among adults | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| Selection with or without purchase | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ Selection with or without purchase among children | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ Selection with or without purchase among adults | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | ||||||
| Tobacco: Longer versus shorter cigarettes for changing quantity consumed or selected | ||||||
| Population: children and adults | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of participants | Quality of the evidence | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Shorter cigarettes | Longer cigarettes | |||||
| Consumption | Mean number of cigarettes smoked per day among a representative sample of UK adults is 13 | Mean number of cigarettes smoked per day would be 2 higher with the intervention (1 to 5 higher) among UK adults | Mean consumption in the intervention group was 0.25 standard deviations higher (0.14 lower to 0.65 higher) | 108 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| ‐ Consumption among children | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ Consumption among adults | Mean number of cigarettes smoked per day among a representative sample of UK adults is 13 | Mean number of cigarettes smoked per day would be 2 higher with the intervention (1 to 5 higher) among UK adults | Mean consumption in the intervention group was 0.25 standard deviations higher (0.14 lower to 0.65 higher) | 108 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| Selection with or without purchase | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ Selection with or without purchase among children | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ Selection with or without purchase among adults | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | ||||||
| 1Rated down by one level for study limitations: we assessed risk of bias as unclear or high in all incorporated studies. 2Rated down by one level for imprecision: number of participants (effective sample size) incorporated into analysis is less than the number of patients generated by a conventional sample size calculation for a single adequately powered trial (optimal information size) and confidence interval crosses zero. 3Estimates of means and standard deviations based on an unweighted analysis of data from the UK Opinions and Lifestyle Survey, 2012 (Office for National Statistics 2012) ‐ see Data synthesis. | ||||||
| Shorter, wider versus taller, narrower glasses or plastic bottles (shape) for changing quantity of non‐alcoholic beverages consumed or selected | ||||||
| Patient or population: children and adults | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of participants | Quality of the evidence | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Shorter, wider glasses or plastic bottles | Taller, narrower glasses or plastic bottles | |||||
| Consumption | Mean quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in a single serve among a representative sample of UK adults is 245 grams8 | Mean quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in a single serve would be 195 grams (79.6%) higher with the intervention (95 to 296 grams higher) among UK adults | Mean consumption in the intervention group was 1.17 standard deviations higher (0.57 higher to 1.78 higher) | 50 | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| ‐ Consumption among adults | Mean quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in a single serve among a representative sample of UK adults is 245 grams8 | Mean quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in a single serve would be 195 grams (79.6%) higher with the intervention (95 to 296 grams higher) among UK adults | Mean consumption in the intervention group was 1.17 standard deviations higher (0.57 higher to 1.78 higher) | 50 | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| ‐ Consumption among children | No evidence is available | ‐ | ‐ | (0 independent comparisons) | ‐ | ‐ |
| Selection without purchase | Mean quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in a single serve among a representative sample of UK children and adults is 234 grams8 | Mean quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in a single serve would be 242 grams (103.4%) higher with the intervention (86 to 400 grams higher) among UK children and adults9 | Mean selection without purchase in the intervention group was 1.47 standard deviations higher (0.52 higher to 2.43 higher) | 232 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| ‐ Selection without purchase among children | Mean quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in a single serve among a representative sample of UK children is 228 grams8 | Mean quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in a single serve would be 377 grams (165.5%) higher with the intervention (292 to 462 grams higher) among UK children9 | Mean selection without purchase in the intervention group was 2.31 standard deviations higher (1.79 higher to 2.83 higher) | 96 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| ‐ Selection without purchase among adults | Mean quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in a single serve among a representative sample of UK adults is 245 grams8 | Mean quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in a single serve would be 171 grams (70.1%) higher with the intervention (68 to 274 grams higher) among UK adults9 | Mean selection without purchase in the intervention group was 1.03 standard deviations higher (0.41 higher to 1.65 higher) | 136 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | ||||||
| 1Rated down two levels for study limitations: study assessed at high risk of bias with respect to the consumption outcome (see Characteristics of included studies 'Risk of bias' tables). 2Rated down one level for imprecision: number of participants (effective sample size) incorporated into analysis is less than the number of patients generated by a conventional sample size calculation for a single adequately powered trial (optimal information size) based on the lower limit of the confidence interval. 3Rated down one level for study limitations: studies assessed at unclear or high risk of bias with respect to the selection outcome (see Characteristics of included studies 'Risk of bias' tables). 4Rated down one level for inconsistency. I2 statistic from the random‐effects model shows that 90.1% of the total variance in study‐level estimates of this effect was due to statistical heterogeneity. 5Rated down one level for study limitations: study assessed at unclear risk of bias with respect to the selection outcome (see Characteristics of included studies 'Risk of bias' tables). 6Rated down one level for imprecision: single study. 7Rated down one level for inconsistency: point estimates are dissimilar and confidence intervals do not overlap. 8Estimates of means and standard deviations based on an unweighted analysis of data from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey, Years 1‐4 (National Centre for Social Research 2012) ‐ see Data synthesis. 9Illustration of equivalent absolute effect on quantity of energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverages consumed in single serve assumes that all energy‐containing non‐alcoholic beverage selected in a single serve is consumed. | ||||||
| Construct | Variable description (type) | Category | Included in provisional conceptual model? | Included in final conceptual model? | Included study first encountered | Other included studies encountered | Rationale for inclusion in final conceptual model | Supporting evidence | Rationale for exclusion from final conceptual model |
| Study design | Randomised controlled trial or cluster‐randomised controlled trial (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Study design | Between subjects or within‐subjects design (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Study/ intervention setting | Laboratory or field setting (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Study/ intervention setting | Selecting/consuming alone or selecting/consuming with others | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Product type | Food or tobacco (or alcohol ‐ no studies) (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Healthiness of manipulated product(s) (food products only) | FSA Nutrient Profile Score (Continuous) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Basis for calculating healthiness of manipulated product(s) (food products only) | Specific product or product category (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Energy density of manipulated product(s) (food products only) | Energy density points from FSA Nutrient Profile model (Continuous) | Study characteristic | No | Yes | Devitt 2004 (study includes concurrent manipulation of energy density) | Kral 2004a, Fisher 2007b, Leahy 2008, Looney 2011, Rolls 2006b (studies include concurrent manipulation of energy density) | Evidence from previous studies that the energy density of food can exert independent and combined influences on energy intake suggests that this has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | |
| Target of manipulation | Portion, package, individual unit, package with individual unit, or tableware (Categorical, nominal) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Type of manipulation | Size (including volume) or shape manipulation (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Post‐hoc decision taken to conduct separate meta‐analyses for size and shape since comparisons of size were not judged conceptually comparable to comparisons of shape among the set of studies included in this review Therefore no longer conceptualised as a potential effect modifier |
| Manipulation from a standard size | No or yes (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | No | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | In practice it was rarely possible to code this variable based on information in study reports, and not judged practicable to code with reference to data from external sources |
| If applicable, direction of the change relative to standard size | Smaller or larger (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | No | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | In practice it was rarely possible to code this variable based on information in study reports, and not judged practicable to code with reference to data from external sources |
| Selection without purchasing or selection with purchasing | Selection without purchasing or selection with purchasing (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Duration of exposure to the intervention | ≤ 1 day or > 1 day (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | No | Yes | N/A – Added based on discussion of collected data between 2 review authors (GJH and IS, April 2014), which identified duration of exposure as a variant characteristic of included studies (in addition to timing of outcome measurement, which had been included in our provisional conceptual model) | N/A | Duration of exposure to larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware has the potential to modify any effects of such exposure on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | |
| Relationship between manipulated product(s) and consumption/ selection outcomes (food products only) | The manipulated foods comprise all of those in the study and all are selected or consumed ad libitum (Dummy) | Study characteristic | No | Yes | N/A – Added based on discussion of collected data between 2 review authors (GJH and IS, April 2014), which identified duration of exposure as a variant characteristic of included studies | N/A | This relationship may have the potential to modify any effects of such exposure on the selection and consumption of food. This is because providing any additional foods for consumption beyond those manipulated may result in additional energy consumption in either or both conditions. Given potential ceiling effects on total consumption, this could modify any intervention effect | ‐ | N/A |
| Relationship between manipulated product(s) and consumption/ selection outcomes (food products only) | The manipulated foods are only a subset of all the foods in the study and there are other non‐manipulated foods that are compulsory to select or consume (Dummy) | Study characteristic | No | Yes | N/A – Added based on discussion of collected data between 2 review authors (GJH and IS, April 2014), which identified duration of exposure as a variant characteristic of included studies | N/A | This relationship may have the potential to modify any effects of such exposure on the selection and consumption of food. This is because providing compulsory additional foods beyond those manipulated would result in additional energy consumption in both conditions. Given potential ceiling effects on total consumption, this could attenuate any intervention effect | ‐ | N/A |
| Relationship between manipulated product(s) and consumption/ selection outcomes (food products only) | The manipulated foods are only a subset of all the foods in the study and there are other non‐manipulated foods in study that are selected or consumed ad libitum (Dummy) | Study characteristic | No | Yes | N/A – Added based on discussion of collected data between 2 review authors (GJH and IS, April 2014), which identified duration of exposure as a variant characteristic of included studies | N/A | This relationship may have the potential to modify any effects of such exposure on the selection and consumption of food. This is because providing additional foods to be consumed ad libitum beyond those manipulated may result in additional energy consumption in either or both conditions. Given potential ceiling effects on total consumption, this could modify any intervention effect | ‐ | N/A |
| Relationship between manipulated product(s) and consumption/ selection outcomes (food products only) | Outcome data maps directly onto the manipulated food(s) (as opposed to a wider set of foods, including but not limited to manipulated food(s)) (Dummy) | Study characteristic | No | Yes | N/A – Added based on discussion of collected data between 2 review authors (GJH and IS, April 2014), which identified duration of exposure as a variant characteristic of included studies | N/A | This relationship may have the potential to modify any effects of such exposure on the selection and consumption of food. This is because including any additional foods in outcome measurement beyond those manipulated may result in additional energy consumption being measured in either or both conditions | ‐ | N/A |
| Concurrent intervention component(s) | Absent or present (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Socio‐economic status context | Low deprivation or high deprivation (Categorical, dichotomous) | Study characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Magnitude of the absolute difference in size | Difference between larger size and smaller size in grams (Continuous) | Intervention characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Magnitude of the relative difference in size | Larger size expressed as a proportion (%) of smaller size (Continuous) | Intervention characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Age | Average (mean) age in years among study completers (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Gender | Proportion (%) of study completers who were female (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Ethnicity | Proportion (%) of study completers of white ethnicity (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Body mass index (BMI) | Average (mean) BMI among study completers (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Body mass index (BMI) | Average (mean) BMI‐z score among study completers (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Body weight | Average (mean) weight in kilograms among study completers (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Body weight status | Average (mean) percentage (%) body fat among study completers (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Body weight status | Proportion (%) of study completers who were overweight (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Body weight status | Proportion (%) of study completers who were obese (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Body weight status | Proportion (%) of study completers who were overweight or obese (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Behavioural characteristics: dietary restraint | Average (mean) dietary restraint score among study completers ‐ Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (Stunkard 1985) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Behavioural characteristics: dietary restraint | Average (mean) dietary restraint score among study completers ‐ Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (Van Strien 1986) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Behavioural characteristics: dietary restraint | Average (mean) dietary restraint score among study completers ‐ Restraint Scale (Herman 1980) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Behavioural characteristics: dietary disinhibition | Average (mean) dietary disinhibition score among study completers ‐ Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (Stunkard 1985) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Behavioural characteristics: dietary disinhibition | Average (mean) dietary disinhibition score among study completers ‐ Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (Van Strien 1986) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Behavioural characteristics: external eating | Average (mean) external eating score among study completers ‐ Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (Van Strien 1986) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | External eating (which measures the tendency to eat in response to external food‐related cues such as the sight, taste, and smell of attractive food) has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | |||
| Behavioural characteristics: emotional eating | Average (mean) emotional eating score among study completers ‐ Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (Van Strien 1986) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | Emotional eating (which measures the tendency to eat in response to emotions such as anxiety, disappointment or boredom) has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | |||
| Behavioural characteristics: susceptibility to hunger | Average (mean) hunger score among study completers – Three factor eating questionnaire (Stunkard 1985) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | Kral 2004a, Rolls 2002, Rolls 2004a, Rolls 2004b, Rolls 2006a, Rolls 2006b, Rolls 2007a, Rolls 2007b (S1), Rolls 2007b (S2), Rolls 2007b (S3), Rolls 2010a (E1), Rolls 2010b (E2) | Susceptibility to hunger (predisposition to feelings of hunger) has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristics: plate cleaning tendency | Average (mean) plate cleaning tendency score among study completers ‐ 7‐point agreement scale anchored (‐3) strongly disagree and (+3) strongly agree (Marchiori 2012a, Wansink 2005e) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Plate cleaning tendency (the tendency for a person to consume all the food presented to them) has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristic: plate cleaning tendency | Behavioural characteristic ‐ Proportion (%) of adult study completers who often or always clean the plate (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Plate cleaning tendency (the tendency for a person to consume all the food presented to them) has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristic: plate cleaning tendency | Behavioural characteristic ‐ Proportion (%) of child study completers who often or always clean the plate (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Plate cleaning tendency (the tendency for a person to consume all the food presented to them) has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristics: consumption monitoring | Average (mean) consumption monitoring score among study completers ‐ 7‐point agreement scale anchored (‐3) strongly disagree and (+3) strongly agree (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Consumption monitoring (the tendency for a person to pay attention to and monitor the food they are consuming) has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristics: binge eating | Average (mean) binge eating score among study completers ‐ Eating Disorders Examination (Fairburn 1993) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Binge eating (discrete episodes of eating during which the amount consumed is unusually large and there is a sense of loss of control over eating at the time) has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristics: binge eating | Average (mean) binge eating score among study completers – Binge Eating Questionnaire (Gormally 1982) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Binge eating (discrete episodes of eating during which the amount consumed is unusually large and there is a sense of loss of control over eating at the time (Fairburn 1993)) has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristics: dieting behaviour | Average (mean) dieting behavior score – Eating Attitude Test (EAT‐26) (Garner 1982) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | Dieting behaviour (behaviour that involves a person restricting themselves to smaller amounts or specific types of food either to lose weight or for medical reasons) has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | |||
| Behavioural characteristics: mood | Average (mean) mood score among study completers ‐ 7‐point agreement scale anchored (‐3) strongly disagree and (+3) strongly agree (Marchiori 2012a, Reinbach 2010) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Mood has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristics: habitual dietary energy intake | Average (mean) dietary energy intake per diem among study completers in kcal (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | Baseline level of dietary energy intake has the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | |||
| Behavioural characteristics: habitual dietary macronutrient intake, Carbohydrate | Average (mean) carbohydrate intake as a proportion (%) of daily energy intake among study completers (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Baseline levels of macronutrient intake have the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristics: habitual dietary macronutrient intake, Protein | Average (mean) protein intake as a proportion (%) of daily energy intake among study completers (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Baseline levels of macronutrient intake have the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristics: habitual dietary macronutrient intake, Fat | Average (mean) fat intake as a proportion (%) of daily energy intake among study completers (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Baseline levels of macronutrient intake have the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | Beasley 2009, Brennan 2012, Monteleone 2003, Yeomans 2001, Rolls 1988 | N/A | |
| Behavioural characteristics: physical activity | Average (mean) daily total number of steps among study completers (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Baseline levels of physical activity have the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristics: habitual energy expenditure | Average (mean) daily energy expenditure among study completers in kcal (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | Rolls 2006b, Rolls 2007a, Rolls 2007b (S1), Rolls 2007b (S2), | Baseline levels of energy expenditure have the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Behavioural characteristics: habitual physical exercise | Average (mean) number of hours of physical exercise completed among study completers per week (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Baseline levels of physical exercise have the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Biological state: hunger | Average (mean) hunger rating among study completers – 100 mm visual analogue scale (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Biological state: hunger | Average (mean) hunger rating among study completers ‐ 3‐point rating scale (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Biological state: hunger | Average (mean) hunger rating among study completers ‐ 7‐point rating scale (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Biological state: appetitive state, Fullness | Average (mean) fullness rating among study completers – 100 mm visual analogue scale (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Baseline levels of feelings of fullness (specific somatic sensation or perceived general state of fullness (Blundell 2010)) have the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Biological state: appetitive state, Satiety | Average (mean) satiety rating among study completers – 100 mm visual analogue scale (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Baseline levels of feelings of satiety (specific somatic sensation or perceived general state of being satiated (Blundell 2010)) have the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Biological state: appetitive state, Prospective consumption | Average (mean) prospective consumption rating among study completers – 100 mm visual analogue scale (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | ‐ | Baseline levels of prospective consumption (how much participants felt they could eat now (Shah 2011)) have the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption of food | N/A | ||
| Other clinical characteristics: depression | Average (mean) depression score among study completers ‐ Zung Depression Inventory (Zung 1986) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | No | Yes | Baseline feelings of depression (or of affective, psychological or somatic symptoms associated with depression) have the potential to modify any effects of larger portions, packages, individual units or tableware on the selection and consumption | N/A | |||
| Socioeconomic status: occupational status | Proportion (%) of study completers in employment (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Socioeconomic status: occupational status | Proportion (%) of study completers with a parent or caregiver in employment (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Socioeconomic status: education | Average (mean) number of years of education completed among study completers (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Socioeconomic status: education | Proportion (%) of study completers who completed at least some further education (greater than high school, at least some college) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Socioeconomic status: education | Proportion (%) of study completers with a parent or caregiver who completed at least some further education (greater than high school, at least some college) (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Socioeconomic status: education | Proportion (%) of study completers with a parent or caregiver who completed at least a 4‐year university degree (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Socioeconomic status: income | Proportion (%) of study completers with an individual income > USD 50,000 (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Socioeconomic status: income | Proportion (%) of study completers with a total family income > USD 50,000 (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Other measures of socioeconomic status: food insecurity | Proportion (%) of study completers living in a food insecure household (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Other measures of socioeconomic status: welfare receipt | Proportion (%) of study completers participating in the US National School Lunch Program (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Other measures of socioeconomic status: welfare receipt | Proportion (%) of study completers participating in the US School Nutrition Assistance Program (Continuous) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Overall (summary) risk of bias | Low risk, unclear risk or high risk (Categorical, nominal) | Participant characteristic | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
