| Title |
The Influence of Calorie Labeling on Food Orders and Consumption: A Review of the Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Community Health, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10900-014-9876-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kamila M. Kiszko, Olivia D. Martinez, Courtney Abrams, Brian Elbel |
| Abstract |
Obesity is a challenging public health problem that affects millions of Americans. Increasingly policy makers are seeking environmental and policy-based solutions to combat and prevent its serious health effects. Calorie labeling mandates, including the provision in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is set to begin in 2014, have been one of the most popular and most studied approaches. This review examines 31 studies published from January 1, 2007 through July 19, 2013. It builds on Harnack and French's 2008 review and assesses the evidence on the effectiveness of calorie labeling at the point of purchase. We find that, while there are some positive results reported from studies examining the effects of calorie labeling, overall the best designed studies (real world studies, with a comparison group) show that calorie labels do not have the desired effect in reducing total calories ordered at the population level. Moving forward, researchers should consider novel, more effective ways of presenting nutrition information, while keeping a focus on particular subgroups that may be differentially affected by nutrition policies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 88 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 23 | 26% |
| United Kingdom | 19 | 22% |
| Saudi Arabia | 4 | 5% |
| Australia | 4 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Comoros | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 27 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 49 | 56% |
| Scientists | 20 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 16 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 246 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 52 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 14% |
| Researcher | 16 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 14% |
| Unknown | 56 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 11% |
| Psychology | 24 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 64 | 26% |
| Unknown | 60 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 195. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2024.
All research outputs
#206,736
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#21
of 1,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,604
of 242,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.