↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, July 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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
206 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
249 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.
Title
A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0548-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asha Kaur, Peter Scarborough, Mike Rayner

Abstract

Health-related claims are statements regarding the nutritional content of a food (nutrition claims) and/or indicate that a relationship exists between a food and a health outcome (health claims). Their impact on food purchasing or consumption decisions is unclear. This systematic review measured the effect of health-related claims, on pre-packaged foods in retail settings, on adult purchasing decisions (real and perceived). In September 2016, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CAB abstracts, Business Source Complete, and Web of Science/Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index for articles in English published in peer-review journals. Studies were included if they were controlled experiments where the experimental group(s) included a health-related claim and the control group involved an identical product without a health-related claim. Included studies measured (at an individual or population level); actual or intended choice, purchases, and/or consumption. The primary outcome was product choices and purchases, the secondary outcome was food consumption and preference. Results were standardised through calculating odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the likelihood of choosing a product when a health-related claim was present. Results were combined in a random-effects meta-analysis. Thirty-one papers were identified, 17 of which were included for meta-analyses. Most studies were conducted in Europe (n = 17) and the USA (n = 7). Identified studies were choice experiments that measured the likelihood of a product being chosen when a claim was present compared to when a claim was not present, (n = 16), 15 studies were experiments that measured either; intent-rating scale outcomes (n = 8), consumption (n = 6), a combination of the two (n = 1), or purchase data (n = 1). Overall, 20 studies found that claims increase purchasing and/or consumption, eight studies had mixed results, and two studies found consumption/purchasing reductions. The meta-analyses of 17 studies found that health-related claims increase consumption and/or purchasing (OR 1.75, CI 1.60-1.91). Health-related claims have a substantial effect on dietary choices. However, this finding is based on research mostly conducted in artificial settings. Findings from natural experiments have yielded smaller effects. Further research is needed to assess effects of claims in real-world settings. PROSPERO systematic review registration number: CRD42016044042 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 206 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 249 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 15%
Student > Master 34 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 13%
Researcher 26 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 4%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 73 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 15 6%
Social Sciences 14 6%
Other 56 22%
Unknown 87 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 159. 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 05 August 2023.
All research outputs
#262,027
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#63
of 2,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,466
of 325,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#5
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 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 2,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 325,819 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.