The effect of food packaging elements on children’s food choices and intake: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little can be added about the worldwide concern over the exponential increase in obesity and child overweight problems. Much of the unhealthy eating habits occur at the time of food choice. The enormous influence of marketing strategies in general, and packaging in particular, has been highlighted here. In this respect, public policies that tend to direct choices toward healthier options have been developed. However, the usefulness of such policies will depend on evidence of how different packaging elements can influence children. This systematic review (SR) aims to compile the knowledge available to date on the influence of packaging on food choices and eating behaviours in children. Methodologically, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines have been followed to select papers. We also assessed the risk of bias in the studies analysed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). The initial search strategy found 2,627 articles, although only 20 of them met the eligibility criteria. Data from the studies were extracted, categorised, and analysed. The results indicate that most of the packaging elements have some effect on children's food choices or food intake. The use of Cartoon is the element with the most consistent evidence of influence. Despite the number of studies and public initiatives developed to promote this informative and persuasive element, less consistency has been found regarding the effect of Nutrition Labelling. Therefore, the results found should be considered by both governments and organisations when promoting public policies that work for the wellbeing of children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".