Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 10;17(1):17.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-0915-1.

A systematic evaluation of digital nutrition promotion websites and apps for supporting parents to influence children's nutrition

Dorota Zarnowiecki  1 , Chelsea E Mauch  2 , Georgia Middleton  2 , Louisa Matwiejczyk  2 , Wendy L Watson  3 , Jane Dibbs  3 , Anita Dessaix  3 , Rebecca K Golley  2
Affiliations

A systematic evaluation of digital nutrition promotion websites and apps for supporting parents to influence children's nutrition

Dorota Zarnowiecki et al. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. .

Abstract

Background: Globally children's diet quality is poor. Parents are primary gatekeepers to children's food intake; however, reaching and engaging parents in nutrition promotion can be challenging. With growth in internet and smartphone use, digital platforms provide potential to disseminate information rapidly to many people. The objectives of this review were to conduct a comprehensive and systematic evaluation of nutrition promotion via websites and apps supporting parents to influence children's nutrition, from three different perspectives: 1) current evidence base, 2) end user (parent) experience and 3) current commercial offerings.

Methods: Three systematic reviews were undertaken of (1) studies evaluating the effectiveness for digital platforms for improving nutrition in children and parents, (2) studies conducting user-testing of digital tools with parents, (3) websites and apps providing lunch-provision information to parents. Searches were conducted in five databases for reviews one and two, and systematic search of Google and App Store for review three. Randomised controlled trials, cohort and cross-sectional and qualitative studies (study two only) were included if published in English, from 2013, with the intervention targeted at parents and at least 50% of intervention content focused on nutrition. Search results were double screened, with data extracted into standardised spreadsheets and quality appraisal of included search results.

Results: Studies evaluating digital nutrition interventions targeting parents (n = 11) demonstrated effectiveness for improving nutrition outcomes, self-efficacy and knowledge. Six of the included randomised controlled trials reported digital interventions to be equal to, or better than comparison groups. User-testing studies (n = 9) identified that digital platforms should include both informative content and interactive features. Parents wanted evidence-based information from credible sources, practical tools, engaging content and connection with other users and health professionals. Websites targeting lunch provision (n = 15) were developed primarily by credible sources and included information-based content consistent with dietary guidelines and limited interactive features. Lunchbox apps (n = 6), developed mostly by commercial organisations, were more interactive but provided less credible information.

Conclusions: Digital nutrition promotion interventions targeting parents can be effective for improving nutrition-related outcomes in children and parents. As demonstrated from the lunchbox context and user-testing with parents, they need to go beyond just providing information about positive dietary changes, to include the user-desired features supporting interactivity and personalisation.

Keywords: Child food intake; Digital; Lunchbox; Mobile applications; Nutrition; Parents; Website; eHealth; mHealth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DZ, CM, GM, LM and RG declare that they have no competing interests. WW, JD and AD are employed by Cancer Council New South Wales (NSW), the funding body which commissioned this review. Cancer Council NSW authors the ‘Healthy Lunch Box’ website, which was included in objective 3 search results.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA Flow chart for article selection for objective one
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
PRISMA Flow chart of article selection for objective two
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
PRISMA Flow chart for website and app selection for objective three
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Mihrshahi S, Myton R, Partridge SR, Esdaile E, Hardy LL, Gale J. Sustained low consumption of fruit and vegetables in Australian children: findings from the Australian National Health Surveys. Health Promot J Aust. 2019;30(1):83–87. doi: 10.1002/hpja.201. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Johnson Brittany, Bell Lucinda, Zarnowiecki Dorota, Rangan Anna, Golley Rebecca. Contribution of Discretionary Foods and Drinks to Australian Children’s Intake of Energy, Saturated Fat, Added Sugars and Salt. Children. 2017;4(12):104. doi: 10.3390/children4120104. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Asghari G, Mirmiran P, Yuzbashian E, Azizi F. A systematic review of diet quality indices in relation to obesity. Br J Nutr. 2017;117(8):1055–1065. doi: 10.1017/S0007114517000915. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marshall S, Burrows T, Collins CE. Systematic review of diet quality indices and their associations with health-related outcomes in children and adolescents. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2014;27(6):577–598. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12208. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burrows T, Goldman S, Pursey K, Lim R. Is there an association between dietary intake and academic achievement: a systematic review. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2017;30(2):117–140. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12407. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types