↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions to support healthy food choices: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2018
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
33 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions to support healthy food choices: a mixed methods systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0752-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire Kerins, Jennifer McSharry, Catherine Hayes, Ivan J. Perry, Fiona Geaney, Colette Kelly

Abstract

Menu labelling is continuing to gather public and legislative support as one of the potential environmental strategies for addressing the obesity pandemic. However, issues relating to implementation have been reported in countries where menu labelling has been introduced on a voluntary or mandatory basis. The aim of this mixed methods systematic review is to synthesise the empirical evidence on the barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions to support healthy food choices. This review will use the 'best fit' framework synthesis approach to synthesise qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods evidence. Peer-reviewed publications will be accessed through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. Grey literature will be accessed through Google Scholar, OpenGrey, RIAN, EThOS, ProQuest, WorldCat, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, and public health organisation websites. Screening reference lists, citation chaining and contacting authors of all included studies will be undertaken. There will be no restriction on menu labelling scheme or format, publication year or language; however, only primary research studies relevant to supply-side stakeholders will be eligible for inclusion. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. At least two independent reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal; if consensus is required, another independent reviewer will be consulted. A combination of deductive coding, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as the a priori framework, and inductive analysis, using secondary thematic analysis, will be used. The overall process will assist in the construction of a new evidence-based conceptual model regarding the implementation of menu labelling interventions. The new model will be assessed for bias and a sensitivity analysis performed. Given the growing consensus that a systemic, sustained portfolio of obesity prevention strategies, delivered at scale, is needed to address the obesity epidemic, greater understanding of the practical issues relating to implementation of such strategies is required. Findings from this review will be used to develop a set of best-practice guidelines to enhance the adoption, implementation and sustainability of menu labelling interventions across countries worldwide. PROSPERO CRD42017083306.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Researcher 9 9%
Other 6 6%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Psychology 7 7%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 29 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#975,917
of 20,449,646 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#155
of 1,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,970
of 294,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,449,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,794 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 294,329 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 91% 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