The objective of this trial was to test two promising front-of-pack nutrition labels, 1) the United Kingdom’s Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL) label and 2) France’s Nutri-Score (NS), relative to a no-label control. We hypothesized that both labels would improve diet quality but NS would be more effective due to its greater simplicity. We tested this hypothesis via an online grocery store using a 3 × 3 crossover (within-person) design with 154 participants. Outcomes assessed via within person regression models include a modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI)-2010 (primary), average Nutri-Score, calories purchased, and singular measures of diet quality of purchase orders. Results show that both labels significantly improve modified AHEI scores relative to Control but neither is statistically superior using this measure. NS performed statistically better than MTL and Control based on average Nutri-Score, yet, unlike MTL it did not statistically reduce calories or sugar from beverages. This suggest that NS may be preferred if the goal is to improve overall diet quality but, because calories are clearly displayed on the label, MTL may perform better if the goal is to reduce total energy intake.

Front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition warning labels to identify potentially harmful foods/beverages have recently been considered in Singapore. The objective of this study was to pilot test two promising FOP warning labels intended to reduce purchases of products high in sugar to determine whether a full scale trial testing one or both these labels using actual purchases is warranted. Five hundred twelve participants ≥21 years old and residing in Singapore completed all study elements online via the NUSMart Online Grocery Store study website. The study was designed as a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) where consumers were randomized and asked to hypothetically shop in one of three versions of an online grocery store; 1) no FOP label (control), 2) a graphical high-in-sugar label shaped like a stop sign, or 3) a text-based warning label. The proportion of labelled products purchased (primary outcome) and all secondary measures of diet quality were calculated using participants’ orders. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was used to compare purchasing behavior across the three study arms. The proportion of high-in-sugar products selected (i.e., those targeted for labelling) was largest in the no label control arm at 20%. The proportion was a non-statistically significant 2 percentage points lower (P = 0.146) for the high-in-sugar stop-sign label arm and 4 percentage points lower (P < 0.05) in the warning label with deterrent text arm. We could not reject the hypothesis of equal effectiveness of the two warning labels (P = 0.231). Results suggest that the two health warning labels have potential to reduce demand for high-in-sugar products in Singapore. Future studies should test the influence of these labels using actual purchases in efforts to identify whether either labelling strategy should be considered for adoption in the local setting. The American Economic Association’s registry for randomized controlled trials; AEARCTR-0003800 . Registered 18 January 2019.

Introduction: Being responsive to end-users is essential to good care. Limited in-depth exploration of parental perspectives on care received by children over the course of serious illness has hindered the development of process measures to evaluate quality of care. Our objective was to identify the key process indicators prioritized by parents in the care of seriously ill young children and develop a framework to guide assessment of quality of care.Methods: This qualitative study followed Charmaz's Constructivist Grounded Theory. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of young children with serious illness in Singapore. Participants were sampled across various healthcare settings, children's ages, and illness categories. Theoretical sampling and constant comparative analysis were used to generate initial, focused, and theoretical codes, which informed construction of a conceptual framework.Results: 31 parents participated from July 2021 to February 2022. Initial and focused coding generated 64 quality of care indicators describing key care practices, interactions, and procedures. Indicators were categorized under four themes: (1) efficient healthcare structures and standards, (2) professional qualities of healthcare workers, 3. supporting parent-caregivers, and 4. collaborative and holistic care. Theoretical coding led to the development of the “PaRental perspectives on qualIty of care for Children with sErious iLlnESSes (PRICELESS)” framework which summarizes elements contributing to the parental perception of quality of care.Discussion: The identified process indicators will facilitate the development of standardised parent-reported measures for assessing service quality and benchmarking among providers. The framework provides overall guidance for conceiving quality improvement initiatives.

Background: Several front-of-pack (FOP) labels identify healthier options by comparing foods within product categories. Alternative approaches label healthier options by comparing across categories. Which approach is superior remains unknown. The objective of this study was to test the effect of a within-category versus across-category FOP lower calorie label on 1) the percentage of labeled products purchased, 2) several measures of calories purchased (total, per dollar and per serving), and 3) total spending. We also tested the moderating effects of hunger and mood on purchasing patterns. Methods: Using an online grocery store, we conducted a 3 × 3 crossover trial involving actual purchases with 146 participants randomly exposed to: 1) no labeling control; 2) within-category lower calorie labels, and; 3) across-category lower calorie labels. We labeled the 20% of products with the lowest calories per serving within or across categories. Purchases were compared using a fixed effects regression on first-differenced outcomes. Results: Relative to the control condition, there was a 3 percentage point increase (p = 0.01) in labelled products purchased in the within-category arm and a non-significant decrease of 1 percentage point (p = 0.711) in the across-category arm. There was no significant difference in the proportion of labeled products purchased between the two labelling conditions. Neither strategy resulted in reductions in any measure of calories purchased or in total spending. When limited to beverages, there was a 398 cal reduction (p = 0.01) in the within-category arm and a 438 cal reduction (p < 0.01) in the across-category arm versus the control. Mood and hunger did not modify the effects for either strategy. Conclusions: Results provide evidence that both labelling strategies have the potential to influence food purchasing patterns. However, we cannot definitely state that one labelling approach is superior or even that an increase in the proportion of labelled products purchased will lead to a reduction in calories purchased. Trial registration: The American Economic Association’s registry for randomized controlled trials, RCT ID: AEARCTR-0002325; Prospectively Registered October 06, 2017. In compliance with ICMJE policy, the trial was also registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, RCT ID: [NCT04165447]. Retrospectively Registered 11 November 2019.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to: 1) identify parent-reported experience measures (PaREMs) for parents of children with serious illnesses from peer-reviewed literature, 2) map the types of care experience being evaluated in PaREMs, 3) identify and describe steps followed in the measure development process, including where gaps lie and how PaREMs may be improved in future efforts, and 4) help service providers choose a PaREM suitable for their service delivery setting and strategy. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles were systematically searched from PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus EBSCOhost databases until June 10, 2021, followed by a manual reference list search of highly relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Abstracts were screened, followed by a full-text review using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: A standardized data extraction tool was used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixteen PaREMs were identified. There were large variances in the development processes across measures, and most have been developed in high-income, English-speaking Western countries. Most only assess the quality of acute inpatient care. Few measures can be used by multiple service providers or chronic care, and many do not capture all relevant domains of the parent experience. CONCLUSIONS: Service providers should integrate PaREMs into their settings to track and improve the quality of care. Given the multidisciplinary nature of pediatric care and the often-unpredictable disease trajectories of seriously ill children, measures that are applicable to multiple providers and varying lengths of care are essential for standardized assessment of quality of care and coordination among providers. To improve future PaREM development, researchers should follow consistent and methodologically robust steps, ideally in more diverse sociocultural and health systems contexts. Future measures should widen their scope to be applicable over the disease trajectory and to multiple service providers in a child’s network of care for a comprehensive evaluation of experience.