| Literature DB >> 35919291 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND/Entities:
Keywords: Sodium; restaurants; salinity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35919291 PMCID: PMC9314199 DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2022.16.4.537
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Res Pract ISSN: 1976-1457 Impact factor: 1.992
Fig. 1Study design of Sodium Reduction Restaurant Project.
Number of restaurants participating in the Sodium Reduction Restaurant Project
| Year of participation | New restaurants | Follow-up restaurants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application | Withdrawal | Participation | Application | Withdrawal | Participation | |
| 2015 | 37 | 0 | 37 | |||
| 2016 | 55 | 8 | 47 | 13 | 1 | 12 |
| 2017 | 70 | 12 | 58 | 25 | 0 | 25 |
| 2018 | 44 | 5 | 39 | 60 | 9 | 51 |
| 2019 | 47 | 9 | 38 | 85 | 13 | 72 |
Comparison of the salinities and sodium contents of all sodium reduction menu items between baseline and on-site inspection after intervention
| Year of on-site inspection1) | Cumulative restaurants | Cumulative menus | Salinity (%) | Sodium content (mg/portion size) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | After intervention | Baseline | After intervention | |||||
| 2015 | 12 | 15 | 0.63 ± 0.31 | 0.51 ± 0.27 | 0.24 | 938 ± 308 | 769 ± 254 | 0.26 |
| 2016 | 26 | 38 | 0.65 ± 0.32 | 0.48 ± 0.28 | < 0.001 | 1,322 ± 711 | 927 ± 513 | < 0.001 |
| 2017 | 48 | 71 | 0.71 ± 0.33 | 0.48 ± 0.27 | < 0.001 | 1,474 ± 749 | 965 ± 554 | < 0.001 |
| 2018 | 70 | 110 | 0.68 ± 0.32 | 0.45 ± 0.22 | < 0.001 | 1,452 ± 733 | 972 ± 462 | < 0.001 |
| 2019 | 102 | 163 | 0.64 ± 0.32 | 0.41 ± 0.22 | < 0.001 | 1,435 ± 738 | 911 ± 525 | < 0.001 |
The values are reported as the mean ± SD.
1)Only the start year is displayed. The project is expected to be completed in 2019.
Comparison of the sodium contents of sodium reduction menu items from baseline to 2019
| Year of participation | Restaurants | Menus | Baseline | Sodium content (mg/portion size) | Sodium reduction rate (%)1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | ||||||
| 2015 | 12 | 15 | 938 ± 308b | 769 ± 254ab | 765 ± 310ab | 693 ± 281ab | 639 ± 313ab | 507 ± 275a | < 0.001 | 44.8 ± 27.5AB |
| 2016 | 14 | 23 | 1,580 ± 774b | 1,026 ± 589a | 780 ± 488a | 724 ± 440a | 695 ± 443a | < 0.001 | 55.4 ± 21.3B | |
| 2017 | 22 | 33 | 1,626 ± 776b | 1,200 ± 600a | 1,085 ± 432a | 925 ± 537a | < 0.001 | 34.0 ± 32.9A | ||
| 2018 | 22 | 39 | 1,429 ± 715b | 1,153 ± 428a | 1,008 ± 586a | 0.003 | 28.9 ± 27.4A | |||
The values are reported as the mean ± SD.
a-bMeans with different small letters in the same row are significantly different according to Duncan’s multiple range test (P < 0.05).
A-CMeans with different capital letters in the same column are significantly different according to Duncan’s multiple range test (P < 0.05).
1)Sodium reduction rate (%) = (baseline sodium content − 2019 sodium content)/baseline sodium content × 100.
Comparison of sodium contents of broth, stew, and noodle dishes from baseline to 2019
| Year of participation | Dish group | No. | Sodium content (mg/portion size) | Sodium reduction rate (%)1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | |||||
| 2016 | Broths | 11 | 1,497 ± 538b | 972 ± 484a | 635 ± 440a | 636 ± 445a | 562 ± 338a | < 0.001 | 60.9 ± 20.4C |
| 2017 | Noodles | 7 | 1,495 ± 307c | 1,062 ± 373bc | 1,254 ± 327ab | 754 ± 351a | 0.003 | 46.1 ± 29.8BC | |
| Broths | 6 | 1,911 ± 542b | 1,330 ± 481a | 945 ± 359a | 810 ± 426a | < 0.001 | 53.0 ± 27.3BC | ||
| 2018 | Broths | 13 | 1,407 ± 653b | 1,088 ± 317ab | 911 ± 387a | 0.014 | 33.9 ± 18.9AB | ||
| Stews | 6 | 1,496 ± 926b | 1,299 ± 362ab | 1,294 ± 1,077a | 0.644 | 13.5 ± 28.1A | |||
The values are reported as the mean ± SD.
a-cMeans with different small letters in the same row are significantly different according to Duncan’s multiple range test (P < 0.05).
A-CMeans with different capital letters in the same column are significantly different according to Duncan’s multiple range test (P < 0.05).
1)Sodium reduction rate (%) = (baseline sodium content − 2019 sodium content)/baseline sodium content × 100.
Annual on-site inspection score and pass ratios
| Year of participation | New restaurants | Follow-up restaurants | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Pass | Score of pass | Fail | Score of fail | Total | Pass | Score of pass | Fail | Score of fail | |
| 2015 | 37 | 14 | 81.1 ± 7.3 | 23 | 55.5 ± 13.2 | |||||
| 2016 | 47 | 19 | 80.2 ± 6.5 | 28 | 56.1 ± 8.9 | 12 | 7 | 90.7 ± 9.8 | 5 | 79.2 ± 9.3 |
| 2017 | 58 | 37 | 78.5 ± 5.6 | 21 | 65.5 ± 6.3 | 25 | 23 | 83.7 ± 5.7 | 2 | 76.0 ± 11.3 |
| 2018 | 39 | 26 | 79.9 ± 5.9 | 13 | 60.3 ± 8.8 | 51 | 41 | 81.5 ± 7.7 | 10 | 69.0 ± 8.7 |
| 2019 | 38 | 35 | 78.9 ± 5.4 | 3 | 61.2 ± 4.7 | 72 | 68 | 83.7 ± 6.5 | 4 | 73.8 ± 10.7 |
The values are reported as the mean ± SD.
Evaluation scores of on-site inspections conducted in 2019
| Evaluation items | New restaurants | Follow-up restaurants | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass (n = 35) | Fail (n = 3) | Pass (n = 68) | Fail (n = 4) | ||
| Mandatory items | |||||
| Sodium reduction menu ratio (20/10)1) | 15.7 ± 1.5 | 15.0 ± 0.0 | 6.7 ± 1.3 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | |
| Sodium reduction rate (20/10)1) | 18.4 ± 1.5 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 9.4 ± 0.9 | 4.5 ± 5.3 | |
| Salinity meter placement (10) | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | |
| Signboard attachment (10)2) | - | - | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | |
| Menu board attachment (10)2) | - | - | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | |
| Optional items | |||||
| Sodium management for a month (10) | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 9.4 ± 1.7 | 8.5 ± 3.0 | |
| Sodium content management (10) | 9.4 ± 2.4 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 8.5 ± 3.6 | 5.0 ± 5.8 | |
| Use of measuring tools (10) | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | |
| No seasoning containers on tables (10) | 5.1 ± 5.1 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 8.1 ± 4.0 | 5.0 ± 5.8 | |
| Sodium management in kimchi (10) | 0.3 ± 1.7 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.0 | 5.0 ± 5.8 | |
| Maximum score | 85.0 | 65.0 | 95.0 | 89.0 | |
The values are reported as the mean ± SD.
1)The total score for new restaurants was 20 points, and the total score for follow-up restaurants was 10 points.
2)Items for follow-up restaurants.
Fig. 2Annual pass ratios of new and follow-up restaurants.