| Literature DB >> 30223477 |
Larissa Mazocco1, Rita De Cássia Coelho Almeida Akutsu2, Raquel Braz Assunção Botelho3, Izabel Cristina Rodrigues Da Silva4, Raquel Adjafre5, Renata Puppin Zandonadi6.
Abstract
This study aimed to create an easy tool to identify healthier choices for meal assembly in food services (self-service restaurants) and to allow consumers to compose their plates to make healthier choices. It is an interventional study, and the first step was setting healthy food parameters to design a rating scale. The first evaluation criterion was based on energy density (ED) and sodium content (SC) using "traffic light" color in the dishes' nameplates; the second criterion was based on food groups; the third criterion was based on ingredients of the meals. After using the classification, we assessed the rating scale in a food service and we evaluated the strategy with its consumers. To evaluate the effect of the nutritional intervention, we developed a multiple-choice-questionnaire with eight questions to measure the impact on consumer food choices quantitatively. The dish nameplate allows identification of healthier choices regarding SC and/or ED by colors; ingredients that compose the dish; the food group and the serving size, helping the identification of the amount of food to compose the meal. Banners helped consumers to understand the information. After four weeks, all the consumers (n = 1000) received questionnaires regarding their comprehension of the classification. The questionnaire presented an ICC of 0.71. Most of the preparations (61%) were inadequate based on ED and/or SC at the studied food service. A total of 556 consumers returned questionnaires, and 86.3% of them observed the rating scale as a nutritional strategy. Almost 55% (n = 261) of consumers reported changes in food choice after reading the dishes nameplates. The items with greater impact on consumer change in eating behavior were the use of colors as an indicator of nutritional quality, portion size information and ingredients list. Almost 25% of the consumers that changed their eating behavior noticed more than three items presented on the nameplate.Entities:
Keywords: energy density; food choice; nutritional education; rating scale; sodium
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30223477 PMCID: PMC6164731 DOI: 10.3390/nu10091303
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Food Groups distribution according to Brazilian Food Guide a and “My plate” and Recommendations for the “Brazilian healthier lunch plate”.
a Brazilian Food Guide 13; b “My plate” 15; c Average of energy value for lunch as 800 kcal in BFG classification. d “My plate” does not present the consumption recommendation of dairy products in percentage just advice consumers to have at least 1 cup (250 mL) of dairy products.
Figure 1Examples of food nameplates proposed to the restaurant by using the rating scale. V = Vegetable; G = grains; P = Protein.
Figure 2“Brazilian healthier lunch plate” based on a percentage of total energetic value.
Average energy density, sodium content and portion weight of the preparations of a food service unit.
| Menu Types of Preparations | Energy Density (kcal/g) | Sodium Content (mg/100 g) | Portion (g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean | |
| Salad sauces * | 1.8 ± 0.45 | 876 ± 806 | 22 |
| Fruits | 0.4 ± 0.09 | 4 ± 4 | 75 |
| Proteins | 1.6 ± 0.56 | 440 ± 261 | 69 |
| Grains | 1.6 ± 0.34 | 308 ± 272 | 103 |
| Beans | 2.0 ± 1.22 | 331 ± 287 | 69 |
| Cooked vegetables | 1.4 ± 0.89 | 282 ± 264 | 63 |
| Raw vegetables | 0.8 ± 0.55 | 37 ± 45 | 102 |
* These salad sauces are used to season raw vegetables and include oils, seeds and/or nuts and sauces based on mayonnaise, mustard, catchup, shoyu and other.
Evaluation of the methodology by consumers that observed the nutritional education strategy and changes in food choices at a food service unit.
| Consumers Changed the Food Choice | OR # | CI (OR) ## | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||||
| N | % | N | % | |||||
| Sex | Female | 139 | 53 | 113 | 52% | 1.06 | 0.73–1.54 | 0.783 |
| Male | 121 | 47% | 104 | 48% | ||||
| Total | 260 | 217 | ||||||
| Age range | up to 35 years | 118 | 55% | 93 | 50% | 1.2 | 0.79–1.82 | 0.369 |
| 36 years and over | 98 | 45% | 93 | 50% | ||||
| Total | 216 | 186 | ||||||
| Education | Graduate | 131 | 51% | 91 | 43% | 1.37 | 0.94–2.01 | 0.096 |
| Postgraduate | 128 | 49% | 122 | 57% | ||||
| Total | 259 | 213 | ||||||
| Marital status | Married/with mate-partner | 154 | 61% | 143 | 67% | 0.77 | 0.51–1.15 | 0.175 |
| Single | 97 | 39% | 69 | 33% | ||||
| Total | 251 | 212 | ||||||
| Children | Has children | 120 | 48% | 108 | 52% | 0.86 | 0.59–1.27 | 0.454 |
| Does not have children | 130 | 52% | 101 | 48% | ||||
| Total | 250 | 209 | ||||||
| Weekly frequency that have lunch on food service | Up to 2 times a week | 45 | 18% | 23 | 11% | 1.76 | 1.00–3.13 | 0.051 |
| 3 to 5 times a week | 212 | 82% | 191 | 89% | ||||
| Total | 257 | 214 | ||||||
| Number of items that called the attention | 3 items or more | 58 | 22% | 31 | 14% | 1.70 | 1.05-2.75 | 0.033 * |
| Up to 2 items | 202 | 78% | 184 | 86% | ||||
| Total | 260 | 215 | ||||||
| Clarity of methodology | I did not understand anything | 3 | 1.2% | 2 | 0.9% | 1.26 | 0.21–7.61 | 0.582 |
| I understand | 256 | 98.8% | 215 | 99.1% | ||||
| Total | 259 | 217 | ||||||
| What has changed in the meal after the methodology? | 1 item | 188 | 75% | 9 | 100% | 0 | 0–1.82 | 0.119 |
| 2 items or more | 63 | 25% | 0 | 0% | ||||
| Total | 251 | 9 | ||||||
# OR: Odds Ratio; ## CI: Confidence Interval; *: p ≤ 0.05.