↓ Skip to main content

Community-Based Restaurant Interventions to Promote Healthy Eating: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Community-Based Restaurant Interventions to Promote Healthy Eating: A Systematic Review
Published in
Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy, May 2015
DOI 10.5888/pcd12.140455
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Eating in restaurants is associated with high caloric intake. This review summarizes and evaluates the evidence supporting community-based restaurant interventions. We searched all years of PubMed and Web of Knowledge through January 2014 for original articles describing or evaluating community-based restaurant interventions to promote healthy eating. We extracted summary information and classified the interventions into 9 categories according to the strategies implemented. A scoring system was adapted to evaluate the evidence, assigning 0 to 3 points to each intervention for study design, public awareness, and effectiveness. The average values were summed and then multiplied by 1 to 3 points, according to the volume of research available for each category. These summary scores were used to determine the level of evidence (insufficient, sufficient, or strong) supporting the effectiveness of each category. This review included 27 interventions described in 25 studies published since 1979. Most interventions took place in exclusively urban areas of the United States, either in the West or the South. The most common intervention categories were the use of point-of-purchase information with promotion and communication (n = 6), and point-of-purchase information with increased availability of healthy choices (n = 6). Only the latter category had sufficient evidence. The remaining 8 categories had insufficient evidence because of interventions showing no, minimal, or mixed findings; limited reporting of awareness and effectiveness; low volume of research; or weak study designs. No intervention reported an average negative impact on outcomes. Evidence about effective community-based strategies to promote healthy eating in restaurants is limited, especially for interventions in rural areas. To expand the evidence base, more studies should be conducted using robust study designs, standardized evaluation methods, and measures of sales, behavior, and health outcomes.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Other 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 24 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 18 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 35 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 November 2021.
All research outputs
#11,165,939
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy
#1,273
of 2,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,091
of 307,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy
#35
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 307,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.