Effectiveness of a Multistrategy Behavioral Intervention to Increase the Nutritional Quality of Primary School Students' Web-Based Canteen Lunch Orders (Click & Crunch): Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.
canteens
choice architecture
digital interventions
intervention
menu labeling
nudge
online canteen
online ordering systems
school children
school food service
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 09 2021
07 09 2021
Historique:
received:
30
11
2020
accepted:
07
06
2021
revised:
16
05
2021
entrez:
7
9
2021
pubmed:
8
9
2021
medline:
29
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
School food outlets represent a key setting for public health nutrition intervention. The recent proliferation of web-based food ordering systems provides a unique opportunity to support healthy purchasing from schools. Embedding evidence-based choice architecture strategies within these routinely used systems provides the opportunity to impact the purchasing decisions of many users simultaneously and warrants investigation. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a multistrategy behavioral intervention implemented via a web-based school canteen lunch ordering system in reducing the energy, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium content of primary students' web-based lunch orders. The study used a parallel-group, cohort, cluster randomized controlled trial design with 2207 students from 17 Australian primary schools. Schools with a web-based canteen lunch ordering system were randomly assigned to receive either a multistrategy behavioral intervention that included choice architecture strategies embedded in the web-based system (n=9 schools) or the standard web-based ordering system only (n=8 control schools). Automatically collected student purchasing data at baseline (term 2, 2018) and 12 months later (term 2, 2019) were used to assess trial outcomes. Primary trial outcomes included the mean energy (kJ), saturated fat (g), sugar (g), and sodium (mg) content of student lunch orders. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of all web-based lunch order items classified as everyday, occasional, and caution (based on the New South Wales Healthy School Canteen Strategy) and canteen revenue. From baseline to follow-up, the intervention lunch orders had significantly lower energy content (-69.4 kJ, 95% CI -119.6 to -19.1; P=.01) and saturated fat content (-0.6 g, 95% CI -0.9 to -0.4; P<.001) than the control lunch orders, but they did not have significantly lower sugar or sodium content. There was also a small significant between-group difference in the percentage of energy from saturated fat (-0.9%, 95% CI -1.4% to -0.5%; P<.001) but not in the percentage of energy from sugar (+1.1%, 95% CI 0.2% to 1.9%; P=.02). Relative to control schools, intervention schools had significantly greater odds of having everyday items purchased (odds ratio [OR] 1.7, 95% CI 1.5-2.0; P<.001), corresponding to a 9.8% increase in everyday items, and lower odds of having occasional items purchased (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8; P<.001), corresponding to a 7.7% decrease in occasional items); however, there was no change in the odds of having caution (least healthy) items purchased (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0; P=.05). Furthermore, there was no change in schools' revenue between groups. Given the evidence of small statistically significant improvements in the energy and saturated fat content, acceptability, and wide reach, this intervention has the potential to influence dietary choices at a population level, and further research is warranted to determine its impact when implemented at scale. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12618000855224; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375075. RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030538.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
School food outlets represent a key setting for public health nutrition intervention. The recent proliferation of web-based food ordering systems provides a unique opportunity to support healthy purchasing from schools. Embedding evidence-based choice architecture strategies within these routinely used systems provides the opportunity to impact the purchasing decisions of many users simultaneously and warrants investigation.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a multistrategy behavioral intervention implemented via a web-based school canteen lunch ordering system in reducing the energy, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium content of primary students' web-based lunch orders.
METHODS
The study used a parallel-group, cohort, cluster randomized controlled trial design with 2207 students from 17 Australian primary schools. Schools with a web-based canteen lunch ordering system were randomly assigned to receive either a multistrategy behavioral intervention that included choice architecture strategies embedded in the web-based system (n=9 schools) or the standard web-based ordering system only (n=8 control schools). Automatically collected student purchasing data at baseline (term 2, 2018) and 12 months later (term 2, 2019) were used to assess trial outcomes. Primary trial outcomes included the mean energy (kJ), saturated fat (g), sugar (g), and sodium (mg) content of student lunch orders. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of all web-based lunch order items classified as everyday, occasional, and caution (based on the New South Wales Healthy School Canteen Strategy) and canteen revenue.
RESULTS
From baseline to follow-up, the intervention lunch orders had significantly lower energy content (-69.4 kJ, 95% CI -119.6 to -19.1; P=.01) and saturated fat content (-0.6 g, 95% CI -0.9 to -0.4; P<.001) than the control lunch orders, but they did not have significantly lower sugar or sodium content. There was also a small significant between-group difference in the percentage of energy from saturated fat (-0.9%, 95% CI -1.4% to -0.5%; P<.001) but not in the percentage of energy from sugar (+1.1%, 95% CI 0.2% to 1.9%; P=.02). Relative to control schools, intervention schools had significantly greater odds of having everyday items purchased (odds ratio [OR] 1.7, 95% CI 1.5-2.0; P<.001), corresponding to a 9.8% increase in everyday items, and lower odds of having occasional items purchased (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8; P<.001), corresponding to a 7.7% decrease in occasional items); however, there was no change in the odds of having caution (least healthy) items purchased (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0; P=.05). Furthermore, there was no change in schools' revenue between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the evidence of small statistically significant improvements in the energy and saturated fat content, acceptability, and wide reach, this intervention has the potential to influence dietary choices at a population level, and further research is warranted to determine its impact when implemented at scale.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12618000855224; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375075.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030538.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34491207
pii: v23i9e26054
doi: 10.2196/26054
pmc: PMC8456336
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e26054Informations de copyright
©Rebecca Wyse, Tessa Delaney, Fiona Stacey, Rachel Zoetemeyer, Christophe Lecathelinais, Hannah Lamont, Kylie Ball, Karen Campbell, Chris Rissel, John Attia, John Wiggers, Sze Lin Yoong, Christopher Oldmeadow, Rachel Sutherland, Nicole Nathan, Kathryn Reilly, Luke Wolfenden. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 07.09.2021.
Références
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 5;9(9):e030538
pubmed: 31492788
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 Oct 7;13(1):106
pubmed: 27717393
Public Health Nutr. 2019 Nov;22(16):3092-3100
pubmed: 31340875
Am J Clin Nutr. 2019 May 1;109(5):1422-1430
pubmed: 30949660
BMJ Open. 2015 Jun 24;5(6):e006969
pubmed: 26109111
JAMA. 2012 Feb 22;307(8):784-5
pubmed: 22302602
Appetite. 2020 Sep 1;152:104714
pubmed: 32304731
Health Promot J Austr. 2021 Jan;32(1):21-25
pubmed: 31749164
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Apr 11;14(1):46
pubmed: 28399887
J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 Jan;110(1):106-10
pubmed: 20102835
Obes Rev. 2016 Mar;17(3):201-10
pubmed: 26693944
Implement Sci. 2017 Jan 11;12(1):6
pubmed: 28077151
Br J Nutr. 2016 Jun;115(12):2252-63
pubmed: 27185414
Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 Nov;106(5):1311-1320
pubmed: 28971849
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2011 Apr;35(2):122-6
pubmed: 21463406
Am J Public Health. 2015 May;105(5):e11-24
pubmed: 25790388
Health Promot J Austr. 2015 Aug;26(2):89-92
pubmed: 25993892
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2006 Jun;30(3):247-51
pubmed: 16800201
Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28-55
pubmed: 22036893
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007 Mar 05;4:6
pubmed: 17338812
Public Health Nutr. 2016 Aug;19(12):2106-21
pubmed: 26714776
Health Promot J Austr. 2017 Mar;28(1):67-71
pubmed: 27136723
BMC Public Health. 2013 Dec 21;13:1218
pubmed: 24359583
Perspect Public Health. 2017 May;137(3):173-181
pubmed: 27436235
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2014 Sep;114(9):1375-1388.e15
pubmed: 25037558