Efficacy of front-of-pack warning label system versus guideline for daily amount on healthfulness perception, purchase intention and objective understanding of nutrient content of food products in Guatemala: a cross-over cluster randomized controlled experiment
Abstract
Background Front-of-package warning labels (FOPWL) have been adopted in many countries aiming at reducing the consumption of unhealthy food and drink products and have also been considered in Guatemala. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of FOPWL versus Guidelines for Daily Amount (GDA) on products’ healthfulness perception (HP), purchase intention (PI) and the objective understanding of the nutrient content (UNC) in Guatemala. Methods Participants (children and adults) (n = 356) were randomly assigned to evaluate either FOPWL or GDA during a crossover cluster randomized experiment in rural and urban areas across 3 phases of exposure. During phase 1, participants evaluated mock-up images of single products (single task) and compared pairs of products within the same food category (comparison task) without any label. In phase 2, participants evaluated labels only (without any product), and during phase 3, they evaluated the same products and questions from phase 1, now depicting the assigned front-of-package label. We generated indicators for single-task questions and scores for comparison tasks, one for each HP, PI and UNC questions. We used intention-to-treat, difference-in-difference regression analysis to test whether exposure to FOPWL was associated with HP, PI and UNC, compared to GDA. We also tested models for children and adults and by area (rural/urban) separately adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Results In single tasks, FOPWL significantly…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 356 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.