Increasing vegetable intakes: rationale and systematic review of published interventions

Purpose While the health benefits of a high fruit and vegetable consumption are well known and considerable work has attempted to improve intakes, increasing evidence also recognises a distinction between fruit and vegetables, both in their impacts on health and in consumption patterns. Increasing work suggests health benefits from a high consumption specifically of vegetables, yet intakes remain low, and barriers to increasing intakes are prevalent making intervention difficult. A systematic review was undertaken to identify from the published literature all studies reporting an intervention to increase intakes of vegetables as a distinct food group. Methods Databases—PubMed, PsychInfo and Medline—were searched over all years of records until April 2015 using pre-specified terms. Results Our searches identified 77 studies, detailing 140 interventions, of which 133 (81 %) interventions were conducted in children. Interventions aimed to use or change hedonic factors, such as taste, liking and familiarity (n = 72), use or change environmental factors (n = 39), use or change cognitive factors (n = 19), or a combination of strategies (n = 10). Increased vegetable acceptance, selection and/or consumption were reported to some degree in 116 (83 %) interventions, but the majority of effects seem small and inconsistent. Conclusions Greater percent success is currently found from environmental, educational and multi-component interventions, but publication bias is likely, and long-term effects and cost-effectiveness are rarely considered. A focus on long-term benefits and sustained behaviour change is required. Certain population groups are also noticeably absent from the current list of tried interventions

Measuring the Food Environment: Shelf Space of Fruits, Vegetables, and Snack Foods in Stores

Dietary patterns may be influenced by the availability and accessibility within stores of different types of foods. However, little is known about the amount of shelf space used for healthy and unhealthy foods in different types of stores. We conducted measurements of the length of shelf space used for fruits, vegetables, and snack foods items in 419 stores in 217 urban census tracts in southern Louisiana and in Los Angeles County. Although supermarkets offered far more shelf space of fruits and vegetables than did other types of stores, they also devoted more shelf space to unhealthy snacks (mean 205 m for all of these items combined) than to fruits and vegetables (mean 117 m, p < 0.001). After supermarkets, drug stores devoted the most shelf space to unhealthy items. The ratio of the total shelf space for fruits and vegetables to the total shelf space for these unhealthy snack items was the lowest (0.10 or below) and very similar in convenience stores, drug stores, and liquor stores, was in a middle range (0.18 to 0.30) in small food stores, and was highest in medium-sized food stores (0.40 to 0.61) and supermarkets (0.55 to 0.72). Simple measurements of shelf space can be used by researchers to characterize the healthfulness of the food environment and by policymakers to establish criteria for favorable policy treatment of stores

A new model and a hyper-heuristic approach for two-dimensional shelf space allocation

In this paper, we propose a two-dimensional shelf space allocation model. The second dimension stems from the height of the shelf. This results in an integer nonlinear programming model with a complex form of objective function. We propose a multiple neighborhood approach which is a hybridization of a simulated annealing algorithm with a hyper-heuristic learning mechanism. Experiments based on empirical data from both real-world and artificial instances show that the shelf space utilization and the resulting sales can be greatly improved when compared with a gradient method. Sensitivity analysis on the input parameters and the shelf space show the benefits of the proposed algorithm both in sales and in robustness

Gastrointestinal Adverse Effects of Short-Term Aspirin Use: A Meta-Analysis of Published Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Aspirin is widely used for short-term treatment of pain, fever or colds, but there are only limited data regarding the safety of this use. To summarize the available data on this topic, we conducted a meta-analysis of the published clinical trial literature regarding the gastrointestinal adverse effects of short-term use of aspirin in comparison with placebo and other medications commonly used for the same purpose. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: An extensive literature search identified 119,310 articles regarding possible adverse effects of aspirin, among which 23,131 appeared to possibly include relevant data. An automated text-mining procedure was used to score the references for potential relevance for the meta-analysis. The 3,983 highest-scoring articles were reviewed individually to identify those with data that could be included in this analysis. Ultimately, 78 relevant articles were identified that contained gastrointestinal adverse event data from clinical trials of aspirin versus placebo or an active comparator. Odds ratios (ORs) computed using a Mantel–Haenszel estimator were used to summarize the comparative effects on dyspepsia, nausea/vomiting, and abdominal pain, considered separately and also aggregated as ‘minor gastrointestinal events’. Gastrointestinal bleeds, ulcers, and perforations were also investigated. RESULTS: Data were obtained regarding 19,829 subjects (34 % treated with aspirin, 17 % placebo, and 49 % an active comparator). About half of the aspirin subjects took a single dose. Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of minor gastrointestinal events than placebo or active comparators: the summary ORs were 1.46 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.15–1.86) and 1.81 (95 % CI 1.61–2.04), respectively. Ulcers, perforation, and serious bleeding were not seen after use of aspirin or any of the other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: During short-term use, aspirin is associated with a higher frequency of gastrointestinal complaints than other medications commonly used for treatment of pain, colds, and fever. Serious adverse events were not observed with aspirin or any of the comparators. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40268-013-0011-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users