| Literature DB >> 29299308 |
Dirk F de Korne1,2,3,4, Rahul Malhotra2, Wai Yee Lim1, Christine Ong5, Ashu Sharma6, Tai Kiat Tan7, Thiam Chye Tan8,9, Kee Chong Ng1, Truls Østbye2.
Abstract
Food group guideline adherence is vital to prevent obesity and diabetes. Various studies have demonstrated that environmental variables influence food intake behaviour. In the present study we examined the effect of a portion design plate with food group portion guidelines demarcated by coloured lines (ETE Plate™). A two-group quasi-experimental design was used to measure proportions of carbohydrate, vegetable and protein portions and user experience in a hospital staff lounge setting in Singapore. Lunch was served on the portion design plate before 12.15 hours. For comparison, a normal plate (without markings) was used after 12.15 hours. Changes in proportions of food groups from 2 months before the introduction of the design plate were analysed in a stratified sample at baseline (859 subjects, all on normal plates) to 1, 3 and 6 months after (in all 1016 subjects on the design plate, 968 subjects on the control plate). A total of 151 participants were asked about their experiences and opinions. Between-group comparisons were performed using t tests. Among those served on the portion design plate at 6 months after its introduction, the proportion of vegetables was 4·71 % (P < 0·001) higher and that of carbohydrates 2·83 % (P < 0·001) lower relative to the baseline. No significant change was found for proteins (-1·85 %). Over 6 months, we observed different change patterns between the different food group proportions. While participants were positive about the portion design plate, they did not think it would influence their personal behaviour. A portion design plate might stimulate food group guideline adherence among hospital staff and beyond.Entities:
Keywords: Adherence; Behaviour; Food groups; Guidelines; T0, 2 months before the introduction of the design plate; T1, 1 month after the introduction of the design plate; T2, 3 months after the introduction of the design plate; T3, 6 months after the introduction of the design plate
Year: 2017 PMID: 29299308 PMCID: PMC5736631 DOI: 10.1017/jns.2017.60
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Sci ISSN: 2048-6790
Fig. 1.Design plate used in the study, with portion design allowing mixed food combinations.
Characteristics of hospital staff lounge users in the design plate and normal plate groups, based on the subset survey
(Percentages; mean values and ranges)
| Design plate | Normal plate | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 114 | 91 | |
| Response rate | 96 | 89 | |
| Female | 75·5 | 69·8 | 0·38 |
| Age (years) | 0·01 | ||
| Mean | 32 | 36 | |
| Range | 20–58 | 19–60 | |
| Race | 0·43 | ||
| Chinese | 58·5 | 63·1 | |
| Malay | 10·4 | 14·3 | |
| Indian | 15·1 | 7·1 | |
| Filipino | 13·2 | 13·1 | |
| Others | 2·8 | 2·4 | |
| Designation | 0·17 | ||
| Nursing | 35·1 | 19·5 | |
| Medical | 16·7 | 19·5 | |
| Allied health | 18·5 | 19·5 | |
| Administrative | 9·3 | 24·4 | |
| Others | 20·4 | 17·1 |
χ2 Test.
Changes in food group proportions after introduction of the design plate
(Mean values and standard deviations)
| Before introduction of the design plate (T0) | After introduction of the design plate (T1 + T2 + T3) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before 12.15 hours | After 12.15 hours | Before 12.15 hours | After 12.15 hours | |||||||||
| Normal plate | Normal plate | Design plate | Normal plate | Difference in design plate | Difference in normal plate | Overall difference for | ||||||
| HPB guidelines | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | (%) | (%) | both plates (%) | |||||
| 442 | 416 | 1016 | 968 | |||||||||
| Carbohydrates | 0·250 | 0·351 | 0·135 | 0·353 | 0·142 | 0·323 | 0·104 | 0·321 | 0·108 | −2·8* | −3·22 | −0·39 |
| Vegetables | 0·500 | 0·317 | 0·184 | 0·352 | 0·187 | 0·364 | 0·172 | 0·357 | 0·174 | +4·7* | +0·51 | 4·20 |
| Proteins | 0·250 | 0·332 | 0·160 | 0·295 | 0·166 | 0·313 | 0·145 | 0·322 | 0·161 | −1·85 | +2·71 | 4·56 |
HPB, Health Promotion Board, Singapore.
* Significant (P < 0·001).
Fig. 2.Differences between Health Promotion Board, Singapore (HPB) guidelines and food group proportions measured, before (T0), v. 1 month (T1), 3 months (T2) and 6 months (T3) after introduction of the design plate. In all three graphs, the dark colours refer to the design plate group, and the lighter-coloured bars refer to the normal plate group. Values are means, with standard deviations represented by vertical bars. Between-group comparisons were performed using t tests.
Staff lounge users’ opinions on potential functions of the design plate, at 1 month (T1) and 6 months (T3) after implementation of the design plate
(Mean values and standard deviations)
| T1 (after 1 month) ( | T3 (after 6 months) ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The design plate helps me to eat | Mean | Mean | |||
| 1. More balanced | 2·30 | 0·94 | 2·58 | 1·01 | 0·07 |
| 2. More vegetables | 2·27 | 1·04 | 2·42 | 1·00 | 0·74 |
| 3. Healthier | 2·31 | 1·04 | 2·42 | 1·04 | 0·63 |
| 4. Less staples | 1·98 | 1·04 | 2·28 | 1·00 | 0·23 |
| 5. Less proteins | 2·08 | 1·06 | 1·98 | 1·04 | 0·56 |
Two-sample t test; 1 (strongly disagree)–5 (strongly agree) Likert scale.