↓ Skip to main content

Information-based cues at point of choice to change selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco products: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Information-based cues at point of choice to change selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco products: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5280-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrice Carter, Giacomo Bignardi, ​Gareth J. Hollands, Theresa M. Marteau

Abstract

Reducing harmful consumption of food, alcohol, and tobacco products would prevent many cancers, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Placing information-based cues in the environments in which we select and consume these products has the potential to contribute to changing these behaviours. In this review, information-based cues are defined as those which comprise any combination of words, symbols, numbers or pictures that convey information about a product or its use. We specifically exclude cues which are located on the products themselves. We conducted a systematic review of randomised, cluster- randomised, and non-randomised controlled trials to assess the impact of such cues on selection and consumption. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 12 targeted food (most commonly fruit and vegetables), one targeted alcohol sales, and none targeted tobacco products. Ten studies reported statistically significant effects on some or all of the targeted products, although studies were insufficiently homogenous to justify meta-analysis. Existing evidence suggests information-based cues can influence selection and consumption of food and alcohol products, although significant uncertainty remains. The current evidence base is limited both in quality and quantity, with relatively few, heterogeneous studies at unclear or high risk of bias. Additional, more rigorously conducted studies are warranted to better estimate the potential for these interventions to change selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco products. PROSPERO. 2016; CRD42016051884 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 30%
Unspecified 6 26%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 30%
Psychology 7 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 22 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,414,199
of 13,830,693 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,673
of 9,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,420
of 275,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,830,693 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 275,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them