↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
162 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
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.
Title
Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008552.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca K Hodder, Fiona G Stacey, Rebecca J Wyse, Kate M O'Brien, Tara Clinton-McHarg, Flora Tzelepis, Nicole K Nathan, Erica L James, Kate M Bartlem, Rachel Sutherland, Emma Robson, Sze Lin Yoong, Luke Wolfenden

Abstract

Insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables in childhood increases the risk of future chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease. To assess the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and associated adverse events of interventions designed to increase the consumption of fruit, vegetables or both amongst children aged five years and under. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase to identify eligible trials on 30 September 2016. We searched CINAHL and PsycINFO in July 2016, Proquest Dissertations and Theses in November 2016 and three clinical trial registers in November 2016 and June 2017. We reviewed reference lists of included trials and handsearched three international nutrition journals. We contacted authors of included studies to identify further potentially relevant trials. We included randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials, of any intervention primarily targeting consumption of fruit, vegetables or both among children aged five years and under, and incorporating a dietary or biochemical assessment of fruit or vegetable consumption. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified papers; a third review author resolved disagreements. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risks of bias of included studies; a third review author resolved disagreements. Due to unexplained heterogeneity, we used random-effects models in meta-analyses for the primary review outcomes where we identified sufficient trials. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for the heterogeneity of fruit and vegetable consumption measures.We conducted assessments of risks of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence (GRADE approach) using Cochrane procedures. We included 50 trials with 137 trial arms and 10,267 participants. Thirty trials examined the impact of child-feeding practices (e.g. repeated food exposure) in increasing child vegetable intake. Eleven trials examined the impact of parent nutrition education in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Eight studies examined the impact of multicomponent interventions (e.g. parent nutrition education and preschool policy changes) in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. One study examined the effect of a nutrition intervention delivered to children in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake.Thirteen of the 50 included trials were judged as free from high risks of bias across all domains; performance, detection and attrition bias were the most common domains judged at high risk of bias of remaining studies.Meta-analysis of trials examining child-feeding practices versus no intervention revealed a positive effect on child vegetable consumption (SMD 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.61; n = 1509; 11 studies; very low-quality evidence), equivalent to a mean difference of 4.03 grams of vegetables. There were no short-term differences in child consumption of fruit and vegetables in meta-analyses of trials examining parent nutrition education versus no intervention (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.28; n = 3023; 10 studies; very low-quality evidence) or multicomponent interventions versus no intervention (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.63; n = 1861; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence).Insufficient data were available to assess long-term effectiveness, cost effectiveness and unintended adverse consequences of interventions.Studies reported receiving governmental or charitable funds, except for two studies reporting industry funding. Despite identifying 50 eligible trials of various intervention approaches, the evidence for how to increase fruit and vegetable consumption of children remains sparse. There was very low-quality evidence child-feeding practice interventions are effective in increasing vegetable consumption of children aged five years and younger, however the effect size was very small and long-term follow-up is required. There was very low-quality evidence that parent nutrition education and multicomponent interventions are not effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption of children aged five years and younger. All findings should be considered with caution, given most included trials could not be combined in meta-analyses. Given the very low-quality evidence, future research will very likely change estimates and conclusions. Such research should adopt more rigorous methods to advance the field.This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 162 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 23%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Psychology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 26 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. 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 06 January 2019.
All research outputs
#202,835
of 17,057,351 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#411
of 11,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,354
of 283,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,057,351 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,624 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 283,979 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 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.