Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

NutrientsNutrients
PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

7 October 2019

17 Pages

An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews on Food Choice and Nutrition Published between 2017 and-2019

Department of Food Science, Section for Food Design and Consumer Behaviour, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Nutrients2019, 11(10), 2398;https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102398
This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Choice and Nutrition
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

The objective of this umbrella review was to provide an update on the latest knowledge in the field of food choice and nutrition. Databases Scopus and ISI-Web of Science were searched for “food choice” AND nutrition. Papers were included if they were systematic reviews published between January 2017 and August 2019 on any subpopulation group. In total, 26 systematic reviews were kept. Data were extracted with a predetermined grid including first author, publication year, country, population group, explanatory constructs (intervention focus) and reported outcomes. Common indicators for outcome measures on food choice and nutrition studies are nutrition knowledge, healthy food choices, food purchases and food and nutrient intake. The most common strategy implemented to alter food choice with a nutritional aim is nutrition education, followed by provision of information through labels. Among children, parent modelling is key to achieving healthy food choices. In general, combining strategies seems to be the most effective way to achieve healthier food consumption and to maintain good nutrition in all age groups.

1. Introduction

The current food system is facing serious challenges and envisages certain disruption in the coming years, particularly in the context of climate change [1]. The year 2019 began with the call by the EAT-Lancet commission for the world to change food consumption in order to remain within planetary boundaries [2]. They specifically called for a population change towards diets mainly of plant origin and using minimally processed foods. This statement parallels most of the national and international recommendations about healthy and sustainable diets [3,4]. Achieving such targets requires immediate action from all societal actors, and it requires a change in food habits. Unfortunately, although societies have been systematically investing on the promotion of healthy food consumption [5,6,7], the population at large is still under-consuming foods of plant origin (fruits, vegetables, pulses and nuts) [8,9,10], while overconsuming foods of animal origin (meat, dairy, eggs poultry) and highly processed foods (rich in added sugars, added salt, and in added lipids, mostly saturated fats or trans-fats) [11]. Therefore, it seems that many of the efforts made by large national campaigns to promote healthier eating have not been successful in achieving healthier food consumption patterns, or in reducing malnutrition, in particular obesity [5,6] which can be prevented through a plant-based diet rich in fresh and healthy plant foods [12].
The fact that food choices affect nutritional status [12,13] is common sense. Consumers at large have been driving the rise in the demand for healthy, sustainable and ethical food products [14]. Food choices are of interest to several actors in the food system, as they drive, e.g., the demand for industrial production [15], or the demand for provision of public health care, as unhealthy dietary choices result from a pervasive obesogenic environment where consumers are manipulated by clever marketing strategies [16].
It is in the context of such knowledge that this paper aimed to providing an update on the latest knowledge in the multi-disciplinary field of food choice and nutrition through a systematic review of systematic reviews, and to serve as a framing paper for Nutrients’ Special Issue on Food Choice and Nutrition. The additional aims were to identify the larger fields of research where interactions are possible, and the outcome indicators related to food choice and nutrition.

2. Methods

A systematic review of reviews was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [17] in the two major English language databases Scopus and ISI Web of Science (WoS). The search strategy had the following syntax in Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“food choice” AND nutrition) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2018) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2017)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)). The search strategy performed in Web of Science was as follows: TOPIC: (“food choice” AND nutrition) Refined by: DOCUMENT TYPES: (REVIEW) AND PUBLICATION YEARS: (2019 OR 2018 OR 2017) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-EXPANDED, IC.
The inclusion criteria were defined using the following PICOS-tool (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design): Population to be considered—all age groups. Interventions could be behavioural (e.g., nudges, social media), provision of information (e.g., nutrition education, labels), nutritional (counselling, cooking skills). Outcomes should incorporate nutritional status, food choices, food consumption or purchase, food or nutrient intake, or consumer relevant data (e.g., knowledge, attitudes). Comparison between exposed vs. non-exposed or when participants were their own controls. Study design: Inclusion of Systematic Reviews on food choice and nutrition conducted following the PRISMA guidelines [17,18] or the Joanna Briggs Manual if stated as Scoping Review [19]. Reviews that did not report themselves as systematic were checked thoroughly as some “scoping reviews” or “umbrella reviews” apply systematic review methodology, and thus, were eligible. Narrative reviews were omitted. Data were extracted with a predetermined grid (Table 1) including the name of the first author, the year of publication, the country where the review was performed, the population group, the explanatory constructs (determinants, intervention) and the reported outcomes.
Table 1. Characteristics of the reviews included.
Initially, 59 items were retrieved from Scopus (21 retained: 26 out of scope papers title and abstract screening; 12 not meeting inclusion criteria) and 22 items from WoS (10 duplicates, 5 out of the scope and 4 retained). One paper was added by the author. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow-diagram describing the process to retain 25 reviews.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow-diagram for the selection of studies.
No further ethical considerations were made as this is a systematic review of the literature and thus, it did not deal with individual data or with sensitive information.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the characteristics and main outcomes of the papers revised. A narrative synthesis approach was chosen, as the papers revealed a large heterogeneity with results that are not comparable in the same units. This narrative synthesis focuses on the main lessons from this review with a focus on the research fields where “food choice and nutrition” papers are of interest, the methods applied, and focusing on the comparability of studies. Table 2 shows a synthesis of interventions to promote healthy eating by age group.
Table 2. Synthesis of interventions to promote healthy eating by age group.

3.1. Reviews on Studies about Food Choice and Nutrition in Adult or the General Population

The most common intervention applied among adults or the general population is providing information to promote informed choices as a way of empowering consumers. Provision of information has different expressions: nutrition education [28,32,42], labelling [24,33,38,39,44], nutrition information in supermarkets and menus and packaged foods [38]. However, it also includes improved food literacy [42] as an empowering tool to help consumers make healthier food choices. In all cases the reported effects on behaviour were modest but positive in terms of improved dietary quality [40,41], enhanced food choices and actual food consumption [28,38]. Findings about the effectiveness of labels are contradictory. On the one hand, one previous study suggested that health claims on labels have a moderate influence on choice [33], while on the other hand, another study reported that effects were not significant [44].
Of note, one review reported the effectiveness of nudges [38] in promoting healthier choices that underscore modest and significant effects of interventions, such as altering the placement and properties of food choice (improved food choice) or menu labels helping in the reduction of energy intake and at the same time, improving the quality of the choices.
Liking foods is a determinant of dietary intake and food choice, however, only one review [31] focused on the assessment of such association. Although hedonic measurements were likely to have a link with dietary intake, the level of the association is not consistent, particularly for people who like sweet taste vs. those who dislike it.

3.2. Reviews on Studies About Food Choice and Nutrition in Adolescents or Young Adults

Adolescence is a time when food behaviours consolidate and have the tendency to track into adulthood [46]. About one third of the retained studies focused on adolescents or young adults. One review [23] reported on the use of social media as a complementary component of larger nutrition interventions and highlighted its potential benefit for short-term changes in behaviour. Hsu et al. [25] underscored behaviour change techniques among adolescents including social media. Interestingly, improvements in two key healthy eating behaviours, namely increased fruit and vegetable intake and reduction in sugar sweetened beverages, were achieved after the application of techniques such as goal setting, getting social support or demonstration activities. Adolescents welcome initiatives to help them make healthier choices, according to some of the reviews reported by Bauer and Reitsch [38].
Menu labelling could be effective in helping children and adolescents in reducing energy purchased and energy intake as demonstrated in artificial/lab settings, however, findings from controlled settings are difficult to replicate in real-life scenarios [45]. Contextual labels (e.g., traffic lights) seem to be more efficient in supporting healthier choices [24].
Powell [30] suggested that healthy foods should be made as convenient, practical, and interesting as possible for young consumers; interesting foods (designed by FF chains & promoted as specials) give a sense of adventure for young males but leaves them vulnerable to unhealthy or unsustainable food choices. Social support, whether from peers or family members, can have both positive or adverse effects on dietary behaviours and eventual onset of overweight/obesity. Family members and sharing meals with the larger family was associated with better eating habits in early adolescence, but not in older ages [26,47]. Particularly, the presence of grandparents at home might contribute to a healthier weight status among mobile/migrated families but not in societies with little geographic mobility [22].

3.3. Reviews on Studies about Food Choice and Nutrition in Children (Infants and or School Age Children)

The two studies by Hosseini-Esfahani [40,41] supported the principle of promoting plant-based diets through different life stages, and that DASH [48] is an adequate quality index for diet quality evaluation. Adherence to DASH was associated with a reduced chance of chronic disease both in adults and children. Strategies for coping with healthy recommendations towards reduced salt consumption comprised exercising self-control at the family’s meal table, replacement of salt with spices, and reduction or avoidance of highly processed foods [39].
The review by Matwiejczyk et al. [21] advocated for combining strategies of nutrition education, changes in the choice environment and in combination with adequate policies to achieve healthier nutrition in children. It also highlighted the importance of role models for children (parents, educators) to achieve success. In Germany, a significant reduction of sugar sweetened beverages consumption by pre-school and school children was the successful result of implementing adequate policies [20], particularly the ban of advertisements promoting unhealthy foods. The principal recommendations, echoing those for healthy and sustainable diets, remain to eat plenty of foods of plant origin, to drink mainly water, to reduce foods of animal origin (milk, dairy, meat, fish, eggs), and low or no consumption of added sugar and sweets [12,13,49].
One study addressed women during pregnancy, lactation and post-partum [37] in middle- and low-income countries. It highlighted the role of health practitioners in providing adequate information on healthy dietary habits within the first 1000 days of life, but also the role of the wider society in providing economic support in this vulnerable period in the lives of mothers and children.

3.4. Review Addressing Food Choice and Nutrition Among Older Consumers

This systematic review [36] concluded that the most effective way to improve the quality of older consumers’ diets is by a comprehensive approach to a healthier lifestyle that includes nutrition education, more physical activity, but also that alters the availability of foods considered to be healthier by most recommendations (e.g., foods of plant origin, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, pulses, olive oil), and thus improving the quality of the diet. It is important to consider that sensory characteristics [31,36,50] of foods for older people are to be underscored during the design of meals and other food products for this consumer segment.

3.5. General Apprisal

By far the most common intervention applied towards improving nutritional status and healthier food consumption is nutrition education in its different forms. This review supports the statement that nutritional knowledge is necessary but not sufficient to achieve substantial and long-term behavioural change. Most of the studies showed that the effect of nutrition education alone is limited if measured as behaviour change (e.g., increased consumption of healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables) [21,28,32,36,37,42]; many of the interventions on labelling [24,33,38,39,44,45], those of setting standards for catering and thus changing the default [20], or investing in the menu design [45] can be considered with the larger concept of “nudging” where the choice architecture is designed to facilitate healthier and more sustainable choices.
Although not unexpected, a main observation from this review is that one size does not fit all when it comes to evaluation of food choice and nutrition research. Indicators for outcome measures vary and include nutrition knowledge [28,42], healthy food choices [24,30,38,40,41], food purchases [33,45] or purchase intentions towards healthier foods [29], self-reported intake of fresh produce [28], intake of fruits and vegetables [25,40] or food an nutrient intake [27].
Additionally, and not unexpectedly, this review of reviews highlights that the field of food choice and nutrition is multidisciplinary and applies multiple methodologies. Qualitative research or mixed methods papers provided deeper insights into determinants of food choices [25,26,29,34,35,42], while quantitative papers provided more measurable effect sizes [24,40,41,44] useful, e.g., for future sample size calculations. Systematic reviews are not yet a cross-disciplinary accepted methodology as the authors of the reviews come mainly from health/nutrition and life science arenas [22,26,30,32,33,39,40,41]. It is underscored that some of the reviews are by authors from business economics [38], food science [36], sensory science [31] and marketing [29], highlighting the potential for cross-disciplinary collaboration.

4. Discussion

Although the liking of a given food item is the main determinant of being chosen by consumers [51], only one review focused on sensory modalities as explanation of food choice [31]. Moreover, taste and hedonic experience is crucial to shaping food choices during the different periods of life, although the mechanisms might be different [52]. Preconceptions or expectancy about taste is a main barrier towards the adoption of healthier plant-based foods in high meat consumption societies [53], nevertheless, in the review by Munt [34] taste was reported either among the barriers or enablers of healthy food choices. Additionally, the search for sensorial and intellectual pleasure will have an effect on the actual food choices [54]. Learning to obtain pleasure from eating is a process, as well as an opportunity to shape healthy eating behaviours from early childhood [55,56].
Several papers advocated for combining strategies when addressing food choices and their relation to nutrition [20,21,38]. Interventions combining nudges, education, vegetables provision, plant-based recipes may be effective in empowering more vulnerable people to make healthier and more sustainable choices [28], overcoming the social gradients in nutritional inequality [57]. Lifestyle modification, including exercise and a healthier diet (low-fat diet rich in complex carbohydrates fresh fruits, vegetables) are associated with the reduction in the incidence of Type 2 Diabetes mellitus and improved insulin sensitivity [58]. Energy density and portion size are dietary variables that influence behaviour [59], hence, additional professional support by dietitians [60] can improve glycaemic control, decreases the risk of long-term complications and support in weight management.
Responding to the encouragement for a comprehensive approach to food choice and nutrition, new tools are now available and will have to be used in future research. In particular, the Precision Nutrition Approach integrates different kinds of “big data” to reveal the complexity and diversity of human metabolism in response to diet. The tools include genomics, metabolomics, microbiomics, phenotyping, high-throughput analytical chemistry techniques, longitudinal tracking with body sensors, informatics, data science, and sophisticated educational and behavioural interventions [61].
The strategies for addressing child eating behaviours reported earlier are in agreement with a review by Scaglioni et al. [62] that highlighted the effectiveness of covert control, avoidance of food rewards, promoting self-regulation, a more authoritative parenting style, family meals, and highlighted ways in which parents can contribute to making the family environment [21,39] conducive to a healthier lifestyle for the child. Eating meals with the family and thus more traditional food consumption is part of an overall support system that allows children to make a better selection of foods (fewer fast-foods and snacks) [26,47], as well as to maintain a healthier weight status [22].
Strategies to address the growing segment of older consumers should consider comprehensive interventions for meal provision and sustained health [36] taking into account the fact that modern older consumers value socializing and independent cooking [63]. Additionally, designing and providing meals for older consumers can take into account flavour and texture modifications compensating for losses in masticatory and chemosensory ability and thus, enhancing the appreciation of foods and stimulating food intake, especially among the less dependent elderly with poorer health [64].
Food choices at the point of consumption or purchase are the result of many cues that “nudge” people and make their choices easier [38] (although not necessarily healthier or more sustainable). Behavioural interventions can contribute to weight management [43] and weight management success may be larger if the focus is on the consumption of healthy foods of plant origin [12]. In foodservice operations, the design of the buffet can facilitate the intake of foods of plant origin if they are placed at the beginning of the line [65] or when consumers are allowed to self-compose their salads [66]. Changing default policies [67] are advocated by Weihrauch-Blüher [20] and effective in behavioural laboratory settings [66,68]. The implementation of nudges in real-life operations is still inconsistent. On the one hand, operationalizing among adolescents and older consumers in four EU foodservice settings the “dish-of-the-day” was unsuccessful to promote an innovative plant-based alternative to meat [69,70,71] but it was more effective in a restaurant setting and when the choices made were between unfamiliar dishes [72]. In retail settings, customers’ implicit beliefs about the relationship between taste and healthfulness, bringing reusable bags to the store, making multiple choices in a row, receiving real-time feedback on spending while on a budget, and paying with a credit/debit card are all linked to less healthy choices [29].
There is growing evidence of the role of online tools as contributors to healthier food choices [23,25]. A positive impact on vulnerable mothers includes the provision of culturally acceptable recipes and trustworthy information online [73].
This paper has, of course, strengths and limitations. PRISMA guidelines [17,74] and a set of pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to have an objective procedure for inclusion and data extraction of data. This umbrella review synthetized 26 systematic reviews. The main limitation is that many review papers [58,62,75,76], essays [54] or scientific opinions [59,77] were not kept for additional data extraction, and many of their findings were omitted from this review or kept for discussion. Although most scientific communications have an abstract in the English language, relevant systematic reviews written in other languages could have been omitted as the search only included documents in English. Additionally, this paper was written by one single author, which will always risk reflexivity bias. It is the belief that the strict methodology and the clear description can make this umbrella review reproducible by other researchers and that the papers obtained with the described procedure will be the same.

5. Conclusions

Indicators for outcome measures on food choice and nutrition studies vary widely, and include among others, nutrition knowledge, healthy food choices, food purchases or purchase intentions towards healthier foods, self-reported intake of fresh produce, intake of fruits and vegetables or food and nutrient intake. A common measure is hard to envisage; therefore, multidisciplinary understanding is advocated. Systematic reviews are being used beyond the medical sciences and will be welcome in cross-disciplinary fields such as food choice and nutrition.
The most common strategy implemented to alter food choice with a nutritional aim is nutrition education, followed by the provision of information through labels. Strategies directed towards achieving healthy food choices among children would be more successful if parents are involved. In general, combining strategies seems to be the most effective way to achieve healthier food consumption (e.g., more foods of plant origin) and to maintain a good nutritional status and intake in all age groups.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

I am thankful to Ilona Faber for her assistance with formatting the final version of Table 1, and with Darren Gambrell for proofreading the final version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Macdiarmid, J.I.; Whybrow, S. Nutrition from a climate change perspective. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2019, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  2. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. De Ridder, D.; Kroese, F.; Evers, C.; Adriaanse, M.; Gillebaart, M. Healthy diet: Health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions. Psychol. Heal. 2017, 32, 907–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  4. Pérez-Cueto, F.J. ¿Dieta sostenible y saludable?: Retrospectiva e implicancias para la nutrición pública. Rev. Chil. Nutr. 2015, 42, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Pérez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Shankar, B.; Brambila-Macias, J.; Bech-Larsen, T.; Mazzocchi, M.; Capacci, S.; Saba, A.; Turrini, A.; Niedzwiedzka, B.; et al. Assessment of evaluations made to healthy eating policies in Europe: A review within the EATWELL Project. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 15, 1489–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Brambila-Macias, J.; Traill, W.B.; Shankar, B.; Capacci, S.; Mazzocchi, M.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Verbeke, W. Policy interventions to promote healthy eating: A review of what works, what does not, and what is promising. Food Nutr. Bull. 2011, 32, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Capacci, S.; Mazzocchi, M.; Shankar, B.; Brambila Macias, J.; Verbeke, W.; Pérez-Cueto, F.J.; KoziolŁ-Kozakowska, A.; Piórecka, B.; Niedzwiedzka, B.; D’Addesa, D.; et al. Policies to promote healthy eating in Europe: A structured review of policies and their effectiveness. Nutr. Rev. 2012, 70, 188–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Appleton, K.M.; Hemingway, A.; Saulais, L.; Dinnella, C.; Monteleone, E.; Depezay, L.; Morizet, D.; Armando Perez-Cueto, F.J.; Bevan, A.; Hartwell, H. Increasing vegetable intakes: Rationale and systematic review of published interventions. Eur. J. Nutr. 2016, 55, 869–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Dinnella, C.; Morizet, D.; Masi, C.; Cliceri, D.; Depezay, L.; Appleton, K.M.; Giboreau, A.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Hartwell, H.; Monteleone, E. Sensory determinants of stated liking for vegetable names and actual liking for canned vegetables: A cross-country study among European adolescents. Appetite 2016, 107, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Appleton, K.M.; Dinnella, C.; Spinelli, S.; Morizet, D.; Saulais, L.; Hemingway, A.; Monteleone, E.; Depezay, L.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Hartwell, H. Liking and consumption of vegetables with more appealing and less appealing sensory properties: Associations with attitudes, food neophobia and food choice motivations in European adolescents. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 75, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Gómez-Donoso, C.; Martínez-González, M.Á.; Martínez, J.A.; Gea, A.; Sanz-Serrano, J.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Bes-Rastrollo, M.; Gómez-Donoso, C.; Martínez-González, M.Á.; Martínez, J.A.; et al. A Provegetarian Food Pattern Emphasizing Preference for Healthy Plant-Derived Foods Reduces the Risk of Overweight/Obesity in the SUN Cohort. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Satija, A.; Malik, V.; Rimm, E.B.; Sacks, F.; Willett, W.; Hu, F.B. Changes in intake of plant-based diets and weight change: Results from 3 prospective cohort studies. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 110, 574–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  13. Morin, É.; Michaud-Létourneau, I.; Couturier, Y.; Roy, M. A whole-food, plant-based nutrition program: Evaluation of cardiovascular outcomes and exploration of food choices determinants. Nutrition 2019, 66, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Van Loo, E.J.; Hoefkens, C.; Verbeke, W. Healthy, sustainable and plant-based eating: Perceived (mis)match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets for future policy. Food Policy 2017, 69, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Santeramo, F.G.; Carlucci, D.; De Devitiis, B.; Seccia, A.; Stasi, A.; Viscecchia, R.; Nardone, G. Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry. Food Res. Int. 2018, 104, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Moore, J.B.; Boesch, C. Getting energy balance right in an obesogenic world. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2019, 78, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, 1006–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Peters, M.D.; Godfrey, C.; McInerney, P.; Baldini Soares, C.; Khalil, H.; Parker, D. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews; Aromataris, E., Munn, Z., Eds.; Joanna Briggs Institute: Adelaide, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. Weihrauch-Blüher, S.; Kromeyer-Hauschild, K.; Graf, C.; Widhalm, K.; Korsten-Reck, U.; Jödicke, B.; Markert, J.; Müller, M.J.; Moss, A.; Wabitsch, M.; et al. Current Guidelines for Obesity Prevention in Childhood and Adolescence. Obes. Facts 2018, 11, 263–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Matwiejczyk, L.; Mehta, K.; Scott, J.; Tonkin, E.; Coveney, J. Characteristics of effective interventions promoting healthy eating for pre-schoolers in childcare settings: An umbrella review. Nutrients 2018, 10, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Young, K.G.; Duncanson, K.; Burrows, T. Influence of grandparents on the dietary intake of their 2–12-year-old grandchildren: A systematic review. Nutr. Diet. 2018, 75, 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  23. Chau, M.M.; Burgermaster, M.; Mamykina, L. The use of social media in nutrition interventions for adolescents and young adults—A systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2018, 120, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Christoph, M.J.; An, R. Effect of nutrition labels on dietary quality among college students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr. Rev. 2018, 76, 187–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  25. Hsu, M.S.H.; Rouf, A.; Allman-Farinelli, M. Effectiveness and Behavioral Mechanisms of Social Media Interventions for Positive Nutrition Behaviors in Adolescents: A Systematic Review. J. Adolesc. Heal. 2018, 63, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Wrottesley, S.V.; Pedro, T.M.; Fall, C.H.; Norris, S.A. A review of adolescent nutrition in South Africa: Transforming adolescent lives through nutrition initiative. South African J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Noll, M.; De Mendonça, C.R.; De Souza Rosa, L.P.; Silveira, E.A. Determinants of eating patterns and nutrient intake among adolescent athletes: A systematic review. Nutr. J. 2017, 16, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. An, R.; Wang, J.; Liu, J.; Shen, J.; Loehmer, E.; McCaffrey, J. A systematic review of food pantry-based interventions in the USA. Public Health Nutr. 2019, 22, 1704–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Castro, I.A.; Majmundar, A.; Williams, C.B.; Baquero, B. Customer Purchase Intentions and Choice in Food Retail Environments: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Powell, P.K.; Durham, J.; Lawler, S. Food Choices of Young Adults in the United States of America: A Scoping Review. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Tan, S.Y.; Tucker, R.M. Sweet taste as a predictor of dietary intake: A systematic review. Nutrients 2019, 11, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Verghese, A.; Raber, M.; Sharma, S. Interventions targeting diet quality of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants: A scoping review. Prev. Med. (Baltim.) 2019, 119, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  33. Kaur, A.; Scarborough, P.; Rayner, M. A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  34. Munt, A.E.; Partridge, S.R.; Allman-Farinelli, M. The barriers and enablers of healthy eating among young adults: A missing piece of the obesity puzzle: A scoping review. Obes. Rev. 2017, 18, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Pitt, E.; Gallegos, D.; Comans, T.; Cameron, C.; Thornton, L. Exploring the influence of local food environments on food behaviours: A systematic review of qualitative literature. Public Health Nutr. 2017, 20, 2393–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Zhou, X.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Dos Santos, Q.; Monteleone, E.; Giboreau, A.; Appleton, K.M.; Bjørner, T.; Bredie, W.L.P.; Hartwell, H. A systematic review of behavioural interventions promoting healthy eating among older people. Nutrients 2018, 10, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  37. Kavle, J.A.; Landry, M. Addressing barriers to maternal nutrition in low- and middle-income countries: A review of the evidence and programme implications. Matern. Child Nutr. 2018, 14, e12508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Bauer, J.M.; Reisch, L.A. Behavioural Insights and (Un)healthy Dietary Choices: A Review of Current Evidence. J. Consum. Policy 2019, 42, 3–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Bhana, N.; Utter, J.; Eyles, H. Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours Related to Dietary Salt Intake in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Curr. Nutr. Rep. 2018, 7, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Hosseini-Esfahani, F.; Hosseinpour-Niazi, S.; Asghari, G.; Bahadoran, Z.; Moslehi, N.; Golzarand, M.; Ejtahed, H.-S.; Mirmiran, P.; Azizi, F. Nutrition and cardio-metabolic risk factors: Findings from 20 years of the tehran lipid and glucose study. Int. J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2018, 16, e84772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Hosseini-Esfahani, F.; Moslehi, N.; Asghari, G.; Hosseinpour-Niazi, S.; Bahadoran, Z.; Yuzbashian, E.; Mirmiran, P.; Azizi, F. Nutrition and diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic kidney diseases: Findings from 20 years of the Tehran lipid and glucose study. Int. J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2018, 16, e84791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Perry, E.A.; Thomas, H.; Samra, H.R.; Edmonstone, S.; Davidson, L.; Faulkner, A.; Petermann, L.; Manafò, E.; Kirkpatrick, S.I. Identifying attributes of food literacy: A scoping review. Public Health Nutr. 2017, 20, 2406–2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  43. Rolls, B.J. Dietary energy density: Applying behavioural science to weight management. Nutr. Bull. 2017, 42, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  44. Seyedhamzeh, S.; Bagheri, M.; Keshtkar, A.A.; Qorbani, M.; Viera, A.J. Physical activity equivalent labeling vs. calorie labeling: A systematic review and meta-analysis 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1117 Public Health and Health Services. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  45. Sacco, J.; Lillico, H.G.; Chen, E.; Hobin, E. The influence of menu labelling on food choices among children and adolescents: A systematic review of the literature. Perspect. Public Health 2017, 137, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Dos Santos, Q.; Nielsen, B.; Dinnella, C.; Monteleone, E.; Giboreau, A.; Saulais, L.; Depezay, L.; Hartwell, H.; Appleton, K. Danish adolescents like their vegetables fresh rather than frozen or canned. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2017, 9, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Utter, J.; Denny, S.; Farrant, B.; Cribb, S. Feasibility of a Family Meal Intervention to Address Nutrition, Emotional Wellbeing, and Food Insecurity of Families With Adolescents. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2019, 51, 885–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  48. Schwingshackl, L.; Bogensberger, B.; Hoffmann, G. Diet Quality as Assessed by the Healthy Eating Index, Alternate Healthy Eating Index, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Score, and Health Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2018, 118, 74–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Chai, B.C.; van der Voort, J.R.; Grofelnik, K.; Eliasdottir, H.G.; Klöss, I.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Chai, B.C.; van der Voort, J.R.; Grofelnik, K.; Eliasdottir, H.G.; et al. Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Song, X.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Bredie, W.L.P. Sensory-driven development of protein-enriched rye bread and cream cheese for the nutritional demands of older adults. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Kesse-Guyot, E.; Baudry, J.; Allès, B.; Péneau, S.; Touvier, M.; Méjean, C.; Amiot, M.-J.; Galan, P.; Hercberg, S.; Lairon, D. Determinants and correlates of consumption of organically produced foods: Results from the BioNutriNet project. Cah. Nutr. Diet. 2018, 53, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Schwartz, C.; Vandenberghe-Descamps, M.; Sulmont-Rossé, C.; Tournier, C.; Feron, G. Behavioral and physiological determinants of food choice and consumption at sensitive periods of the life span, a focus on infants and elderly. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 46, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Reipurth, M.F.S.; Hørby, L.; Gregersen, C.G.; Bonke, A.; Perez Cueto, F.J.A. Barriers and facilitators towards adopting a more plant-based diet in a sample of Danish consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 73, 288–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Perisé, R.; Serrano Ríos, G. Essay on health, nutrition and gastronomy. Nutr. Hosp. 2018, 35, 52–55. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  55. Marty, L.; Chambaron, S.; Nicklaus, S.; Monnery-Patris, S. Learned pleasure from eating: An opportunity to promote healthy eating in children? Appetite 2018, 120, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  56. Amaya-Corchuelo, S.; Zarza, M.F.; Criado, E.A. Pleasure, health and sociability. Food fact and food choice through Iberian ham. Rev. Dialectol. Tradic. Pop. 2018, 73, 425–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Thomson, K.; Hillier-Brown, F.; Todd, A.; McNamara, C.; Huijts, T.; Bambra, C. The effects of public health policies on health inequalities in high-income countries: An umbrella review. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Shobana, S.; Ramya Bai, R.M.; Sudha, V.; Unnikrishnan, R.; Pradeepa, R.; Anjana, R.M.; Mohan, V. Nutrition and its link with diabetes in asian indians: Challenges and solutions. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. 2018, 84, 955–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Blundell, J.E. The contribution of behavioural science to nutrition: Appetite control. Nutr. Bull. 2017, 42, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Steinke, T.J.; O’Callahan, E.L.; York, J.L. Role of a registered dietitian in pediatric type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Transl. Pediatr. 2017, 6, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. O’Sullivan, A.; Henrick, B.; Dixon, B.; Barile, D.; Zivkovic, A.; Smilowitz, J.; Lemay, D.; Martin, W.; German, J.B.; Schaefer, S.E. 21st century toolkit for optimizing population health through precision nutrition. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 3004–3015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Scaglioni, S.; De Cosmi, V.; Ciappolino, V.; Parazzini, F.; Brambilla, P.; Agostoni, C. Factors influencing children’s eating behaviours. Nutrients 2018, 10, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Bjørner, T.; Korsgaard, D.; Christine Reinbach, H.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. A contextual identification of home-living older adults’ positive mealtime practices: A honeycomb model as a framework for joyful aging and the importance of social factors. Appetite 2018, 129, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  64. Song, X.; Pérez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Bølling Laugesen, S.M.; van der Zanden, L.D.T.; Giacalone, D. Older consumers’ attitudes towards food carriers for protein-enrichment. Appetite 2019, 135, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  65. Bucher, T.; Collins, C.; Rollo, M.E.; McCaffrey, T.A.; De Vlieger, N.; Van Der Bend, D.; Truby, H.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: A systematic review of positional influences on food choice. Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 115, 2252–2263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  66. Friis, R.; Skov, L.R.; Olsen, A.; Appleton, K.M.; Saulais, L.; Dinnella, C.; Hartwell, H.; Depezay, L.; Monteleone, E.; Giboreau, A.; et al. Comparison of three nudge interventions (priming, default option, and perceived variety) to promote vegetable consumption in a self-service buffet setting. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  67. Higgs, S.; Liu, J.; Collins, E.I.M.; Thomas, J.M. Using social norms to encourage healthier eating. Nutr. Bull. 2019, 44, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Kongsbak, I.; Skov, L.R.; Nielsen, B.K.; Ahlmann, F.K.; Schaldemose, H.; Atkinson, L.; Wichmann, M.; Pérez-Cueto, F.J.A. Increasing fruit and vegetable intake among male university students in an ad libitum buffet setting: A choice architectural nudge intervention. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 49, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Dos Santos, Q.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Rodrigues, V.M.; Appleton, K.; Giboreau, A.; Saulais, L.; Monteleone, E.; Dinnella, C.; Brugarolas, M.; Hartwell, H. Impact of a nudging intervention and factors associated with vegetable dish choice among European adolescents. Eur. J. Nutr. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Dos Santos, Q.; Nogueira, B.M.; Rodrigues, V.M.; Hartwell, H.; Giboreau, A.; Monteleone, E.; Dinnella, C.; Perez-Cueto, F.J. Nudging using the ‘dish of the day’ strategy does not work for plant-based meals in a Danish sample of adolescent and older people. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Zhou, X.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Dos Santos, Q.; Bredie, W.L.P.; Molla-Bauza, M.B.; Rodrigues, V.M.; Buch-Andersen, T.; Appleton, K.M.; Hemingway, A.; Giboreau, A.; et al. Promotion of novel plant-based dishes among older consumers using the ‘dish of the day’ as a nudging strategy in 4 EU countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 75, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Saulais, L.; Massey, C.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Appleton, K.M.; Dinnella, C.; Monteleone, E.; Depezay, L.; Hartwell, H.; Giboreau, A. When are “Dish of the Day” nudges most effective to increase vegetable selection? Food Policy 2019, 85, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Tobey, L.N.; Mouzong, C.; Angulo, J.S.; Bowman, S.; Manore, M.M. How low-income mothers select and adapt recipes and implications for promoting healthy recipes online. Nutrients 2019, 11, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  74. Beller, E.M.; Glasziou, P.P.; Altman, D.G.; Hopewell, S.; Bastian, H.; Chalmers, I.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Lasserson, T.; Tovey, D. PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013, 10, e1001419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  75. De Cosmi, V.; Scaglioni, S.; Agostoni, C. Early taste experiences and later food choices. Nutrients 2017, 9, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Kliemann, N.; Kraemer, M.V.S.; Scapin, T.; Rodrigues, V.M.; Fernandes, A.C.; Bernardo, G.L.; Uggioni, P.L.; Proença, R.P.C. Serving size and nutrition labelling: Implications for nutrition information and nutrition claims on packaged foods. Nutrients 2018, 10, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Kapoor, D.; Kean, L. Effects of maternal obesity on maternal and fetal health. Curr. Womens. Health Rev. 2017, 13, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Daily Fructose Traces Intake and Liver Injury in Children with Hereditary Fructose Intolerance
Previous
Dietary Protein, Exercise, and Frailty Domains
Next