Promoting Healthy Choices in Non-Chain Restaurants

Abstract

This study tested a novel intervention to influence restaurant customer ordering behavior, with measurements at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months postintervention in four owner-operated restaurants in the Midwest. A sample of 141 to 370 customers was surveyed at each time point. The response rate was 70% to 84% with 59% women, 98% White, and a mean age of 53 years. Table signs listed changes customers might consider, for example, asking for meat broiled instead of fried or requesting smaller portions. Customer surveys measured program reach and effectiveness. Owner interviews measured perceptions of program burden and customer response. Order slips were analyzed for evidence of changes in ordering. Window signs were noticed by 40%, 48%, and 45% of customers at each follow-up, respectively. Table signs were noticed by 67%, 71%, and 69% of customers, respectively. Of those, 34% at each time point stated that the signs influenced their order. Examples of how orders were influenced were elicited. Order slip data not only did not show significant changes but was also found to be an inadequate measure for the intervention. Owners reported no concerns or complaints. This intervention resulted in small but positive behavior changes among a portion of customers. Because of its simplicity and acceptability, it has great potential for dissemination.

The impact of interventions to promote healthier ready‐to‐eat meals (to eat in, to take away or to be delivered) sold by specific food outlets open to the general public: a systematic review

“…For the four remaining studies, food outlets, rather than individuals, were the unit of observation and analysis. Study populations ranged from lower to higher SES and more ethnically diverse samples to mainly Caucasian samples . Some studies targeted specific ethnic groups, including Mexican–Americans , low‐income African–Americans and low‐income Latino–Americans .…”

“…In terms of the types of food outlets targeted, 18 studies focused on chain food outlets and 12 studies were set in other types of food outlet, including three studies in non‐chain food outlets ; one study each in takeaway food outlets ; a delicatessen‐style food outlet ; privately owned fast‐food‐style Mexican food outlets ; community food outlets that included both counter and table service ; Latino family‐owned food outlets ; licensed retail food outlets ; licensed hotels, clubs and nightclubs ; restaurants and cafes ; and small independent catering outlets . Most of the chain food outlets were fast food counter service, but other food outlet types included table service or takeaway only.…”

The Rural Restaurant Healthy Options Program

“…It was intended to be simple, low cost, and low risk in order to maximize the likelihood of future dissemination. Results from previous phases of the restaurant study are described elsewhere (Nothwehr, Snetselaar, Dawson, Hradek, & Sepulveda, 2010; Nothwehr, Snetselaar, Dawson, & Schultz, 2012). Final results from the dissemination phase in terms of program maintenance are currently being analyzed.…”

Promoting healthier children's meals at quick-service and full-service restaurants: Results from a pilot and feasibility study

“…A second approach is to target parents, given the role they play in children’s meal ordering (8,9). Prompting has increased sales of targeted items among adults (10), with some evidence that verbal prompts, (11,12), signage (13,14), and healthy primes on menus (15) can promote healthier ordering patterns. However, these efforts also traditionally target nutritionally poor options (e.g., adding dessert to a meal).…”