Appendix 3: Summary of studies Summary of experimental, direct observation and case control studies Author Study Participant Method and/or intervention (if Relevant outcome measures Quality characteristics characteristics any) rating (design; aims) DeDonder et To identify if there Two groups of In a kitchen, three cameras Self-report: Percent saying they Medium al., 2009. is a difference participants were recorded the preparation of the noticed label instructions during (not in their between studied: 20 products. Participants were preparation; percent saying the actual United States consumer adolescents 12-14 instructed to prepare the meal as instructions influenced how they home, of America intention and of age, and 21 they would at home. Observed prepared the products. limited actual behaviour adults (mean age of practices were compared to label sample, not Observation: Number of users regarding 40 years) who instructions. After cooking, eye observed following all label preparation of prepare food in the participants filled in a 24-question tracking) instructions (e.g. wash hands frozen chicken home at least twice self-report survey about their food after touching raw product, turn products. per week. Two practice intentions. product half way through thirds of cooking, use food thermometer participants female. to check final temperature). MORI, Aim: To provide Even split of 15 non-eye tracked accompanied Observation: Proportion High 2010. evidence of what family and and 36 eye tracked shopping directly at’ food labels ‘looking information post-family trips. All in main retail while shopping and in the home. people actually participants (aged supermarkets. Follow up Scotland, Stocktake: of what is actually in look at when 18-60 years). Even interviews. Ireland and home pantry. shopping, as split of urban and 15 filmed meals at home. England. Interviews: Rationale for opposed to what rural participants. 20 eye tracked tasked shops in directly at’ food label. they say they Mix of social grades the Retail Lab with field of vision ‘looking look at. across the sample. glasses and 6 follow up eye Semiotic analysis: How Design: tracked tasked purchases. Follow consumers engage with images Observation and up interviews. and text on food labels. interviews. Semiotic and packaging analysis.
Appendix 3: Summary of studies Summary of experimental, direct observation and case control studies Author Study characteristics (design; aims) Participant characteristics Method and/or intervention (if any) Relevant outcome measures Quality rating DeDonder et al., 2009. United States of America To identify if there is a difference between consumer intention and actual behaviour regarding preparation of frozen chicken products. Two groups of participants were studied: 20 adolescents 12-14 of age, and 21 adults (mean age of 40 years) who prepare food in the home at least twice per week. Two thirds of participants female. In a kitchen, three cameras recorded the preparation of the products. Participants were instructed to prepare the meal as they would at home. Observed practices were compared to label instructions. After cooking, participants filled in a 24-question self-report survey about their food practice intentions. Self-report: Percent saying they noticed label instructions during preparation; percent saying the instructions influenced how they prepared the products. Observation: Number of users observed following all label instructions (e.g. wash hands after touching raw product, turn product half way through cooking, use food thermometer to check final temperature). Medium (not in their actual home, limited sample, not eye tracking) MORI, 2010. Scotland, Ireland and England. Aim: To provide evidence of what information people actually look at when shopping, as opposed to what they say they look at. Design: Observation and interviews. Even split of family and post-family participants (aged 18-60 years). Even split of urban and rural participants. Mix of social grades across the sample. 15 non-eye tracked accompanied and 36 eye tracked shopping trips. All in main retail supermarkets. Follow up interviews. 15 filmed meals at home. 20 eye tracked tasked shops in the Retail Lab with field of vision glasses and 6 follow up eye tracked tasked purchases. Follow up interviews. Semiotic and packaging analysis. Observation: Proportion ‘looking directly at’ food labels while shopping and in the home. Stocktake: of what is actually in home pantry. Interviews: Rationale for ‘looking directly at’ food label. Semiotic analysis: How consumers engage with images and text on food labels. High
SD2%20R6_47impact%20food%20safety%20label%20elements.docx