Back

Effect of physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels on energy purchased in cafeterias: a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial

Reynolds, J.; Ventsel, M.; Hobson, A.; Pilling, M.; Pechey, R.; Jebb, S.; Hollands, G.; Marteau, T.

2022-02-27 public and global health
10.1101/2022.02.26.22271547 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundA recent meta-analysis suggested that using physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels results in people selecting and consuming less energy. Only one included study was conducted in a naturalistic setting, in four convenience stores. The current study aimed to estimate the effect of PACE labels on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias. Methods and findingsA stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial to test the effect of PACE labels (which include kcal content and minutes of walking required to expend the energy content of the labelled food) on energy purchased. The setting was ten worksite cafeterias in England, which were randomised to the order in which they introduced PACE labels on selected food and drinks following a baseline period. The study ran for 12 weeks with over 250,000 transactions recorded on electronic tills. The primary outcome was total energy (kcal) purchased from intervention items per day. The secondary outcomes were: energy purchased from non-intervention items per day, total energy purchased per day, and revenue. Regression models showed no evidence of an overall effect on energy purchased from intervention items, -1.3% (95% CI -3.5% to 0.9%) during the intervention. Of the 10 cafeterias, there were null results in five, significant reductions in four, and a significant increase in one. There was also no evidence for an effect on energy purchased from non-intervention items, -0.0% (95% CI -1.8% to 1.8%), and no clear evidence for total items -1.6% (95% CI -3.3% to 0.0%). Revenue increased during the intervention, 1.1% (95% CI 0.4% to 1.9%). Study limitations include using energy purchased and not energy consumed, and access only to transaction-level sales, rather than individual-level data. ConclusionOverall, the evidence was consistent with PACE labels not changing energy purchased in worksite cafeterias. There was considerable variation in effects between cafeterias, suggesting potentially important unmeasured moderators. Trial registrationThe study was prospectively registered on ISRCTN (date: 30.03.21; ISRCTN31315776).

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
52.9%
50% of probability mass above
2
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.0%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.0%
5
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
6
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
7
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
8
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
9
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
10
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
11
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
12
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
13
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.2%
15
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
16
Current Developments in Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
17
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
18
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
19
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
22
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 76%
0.7%
23
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
25
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
27
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%