Evaluation of a Dutch public-private partnership to promote healthier diet.

Department of Health Education and Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
American journal of health promotion: AJHP (Impact Factor: 2.37). 05/2006; 20(5):309-12. DOI: 10.4278/0890-1171-20.5.309
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Public-private partnerships may help to promote healthy diets. We assessed customers' exposure to and the acceptability of a Dutch public-private healthy diet campaign in butcher's shops and investigated the effects on the purchase of lean meat and the use of liquid cooking margarine and potential behavioral determinants.
The pretest-posttest control group design included 486 customers (242 experimental and 244 control) of butcher shops representing 64% of the original sample. Campaign exposure, acceptability, and behavioral effects were measured by a questionnaire.
Seventy-one percent of the customers noticed the campaign. Scores on the acceptability were positive to very positive. Regression analysis revealed that customers in the experimental condition evaluated the campaign better (B = .415; p < .05) and felt more encouraged to buy lean meat (B = .252; p < .05) than customers in the control condition. No effects on behavior were found.
Study design limitations included possible campaign exposure of control group participants. The study shows the feasibility and acceptability of a joint health-promoting activity through a public-private partnership, but there were no effects on behavior.

Download full-text


Available from: Hilde M van Keulen, Jul 14, 2014
  • Source
    Mathematical Social Sciences 01/2007; · 0.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increasingly high rates of obesity have heightened interest among researchers and practitioners in identifying evidence-based interventions to increase access to healthful foods and beverages. Because most food purchasing decisions are made in food stores, such settings are optimal for interventions aimed at influencing these decisions. The objective of this review was to synthesize the evidence on supermarket and grocery store interventions to promote healthful food choices. We searched PubMed through July 2012 to identify original research articles evaluating supermarket and grocery store interventions that promoted healthful food choices. We categorized each intervention by type of intervention strategy and extracted and summarized data on each intervention. We developed a scoring system for evaluating each intervention and assigned points for study design, effectiveness, reach, and availability of evidence. We averaged points for each intervention category and compared the strength of the evidence for each category. We identified 58 articles and characterized 33 interventions. We found 7 strategies used alone or in combination. The most frequently used strategy was the combination of point-of-purchase and promotion and advertising (15 interventions); evidence for this category was scored as sufficient. On average, of 3 points possible, the intervention categories scored 2.6 for study design, 1.1 for effectiveness, 0.3 for reach, and 2 for availability of evidence. Three categories showed sufficient evidence; 4 showed insufficient evidence; none showed strong evidence. More rigorous testing of interventions aimed at improving food and beverage choices in food stores, including their effect on diet and health outcomes, is needed.
    Preventing chronic disease 04/2013; 10:E50. DOI:10.5888/pcd10.120156 · 1.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: Reducing health inequalities is a policy priority in many developed countries. Little is known about effective strategies to reduce inequalities in obesity and its underlying behaviors. The goal of the study was to investigate differential effectiveness of interventions aimed at obesity prevention, the promotion of physical activity or a healthy diet by SES. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Subgroup analyses in 2010 and 2011 of 26 Dutch studies funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development after 1990 (n=17) or identified by expert contact (n=9). Methodologic quality and differential effects were synthesized in harvest plots, subdivided by setting, age group, intensity, and time to follow-up. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seven lifestyle interventions were rated more effective and four less effective in groups with high SES; for 15 studies no differential effects could be demonstrated. One study in the healthcare setting showed comparable effects in both socioeconomic groups. The only mass media campaign provided modest evidence for higher effectiveness among those with high SES. Individually tailored and workplace interventions were either more effective in higher-SES groups (n=4) or no differential effects were demonstrated (n=9). School-based studies (n=7) showed mixed results. Two of six community studies provided evidence for better effectiveness in lower-SES groups; none were more effective in higher-SES groups. One high-intensity community-based study provided best evidence for higher effectiveness in low-SES groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although for the majority of interventions aimed at obesity prevention, the promotion of physical activity, or a healthy diet, no differential effectiveness could be demonstrated, interventions may widen as well as reduce socioeconomic inequalities in these outcomes. Equity-specific subgroup analyses contribute to needed knowledge about what may work to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in obesity and underlying health behaviors.
    American journal of preventive medicine 06/2013; 44(6):e57-e66. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.041 · 4.28 Impact Factor