Suchergebnisse

Objetivo: Comparar o tempo necessário para realizar escolhas alimentares com diferentes modelos de rotulagem nutricional frontal entre adultos brasileiros. Métodos: Foram realizadas entrevistas com 150 participantes, que foram orientados a escolher o produto mais saudável entre dois alimentos, sendo apresentados oito pares de imagens. Um dos produtos de cada par apresentava advertências (alto em açúcares, sódio ou gordura saturada), testados em formatos diferentes de acordo com o grupo no qual o indivíduo era alocado: lupa, octógono, círculo, triângulo e semáforo. Foram contabilizados o número de acertos do produto mais saudável em cada par e o tempo para escolha correta do produto mais saudável. Resultados: Observou-se menor número de acertos do produto mais saudável entre os pares com semáforo, em comparação com qualquer outro modelo (p<0,001), sendo este também o formato no qual se observou maior tempo necessário para escolher corretamente o produto mais saudável (p<0,001). Não foram observadas diferenças significativas entre os demais formatos. Na análise individual dos produtos, o círculo teve melhor desempenho, sendo observado tempo significativamente menor para escolhas corretas em sete dos oito produtos. Conclusão: Para apoiar escolhas alimentares saudáveis, indica-se o uso de qualquer um dos formatos testados para a rotulagem nutricional frontal, exceto o do semáforo. O círculo aparenta ser uma boa opção para reduzir o tempo do consumidor frente a escolhas saudáveis. ; Objective: to compare the time Brazilian adults required to make food choices with different models of front-of-pack nutrition labeling. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 150 participants, who were instructed to select the healthiest product between two foods, with eight pairs of images presented. One of the products in each pair had warnings (high in sugars, sodium, or saturated fat), evaluated in different formats according to the group in which the individual was allocated: magnifying glass, octagon, circle, triangle, and traffic light. The number of correct answers for the healthiest product in each pair and the time to correctly select of the healthiest product were measured. Results: A lower number of correct answers for the healthier product among the pairs occurred with traffic lights than with any other model (p <0.001), which is also the format in which the longest time was necessary to correctly select the healthiest product (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the other formats. In the individual analysis of the products, the circle performed better, with significantly less time required to make the correct choices in seven of the eight products. Conclusion: To support healthy food choices, any of the tested formats for frontal nutrition labeling are indicated, except for the traffic light. The circle appears to be a good option to reduce consumer's time to select healthy choices.

Scaling up breastfeeding programmes has not been highly prioritized despite overwhelming evidence that breastfeeding benefits the health of mothers and children. Lack of evidence‐based tools for scaling up may deter countries from prioritizing breastfeeding. To fill this gap, Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly (BBF) was developed to guide countries in effectively scaling up programmes to protect, promote, and support breastfeeding. BBF includes an evidence‐based toolbox that consists of a BBF Index, case studies, and a 5‐meeting process. These three interrelated components enable countries to assess their breastfeeding scaling up environment, identify gaps, propose policy recommendations, develop a scaling up plan, and track progress. The toolbox was developed based on current evidence and expert guidance from a Technical Advisory Group, which was composed of global breastfeeding and metric experts with experience in the scaling up of health and nutrition programmes in low‐, middle‐, and high‐income countries. The BBF toolbox required a step‐by‐step iterative approach to describe and systematize each component, thus an operational manual was developed. The BBF toolbox and BBF operational manual underwent intensive pretesting in two countries, Ghana and Mexico, resulting in the modification of each component plus the operational manual. Pretesting continues in six additional countries demonstrating that BBF is a robust and dynamic multi‐sectoral process that, with relatively minor adaptations, can be successfully implemented in countries across world regions.

Global efforts to further improve exclusive breastfeeding rates have not been successful, in part because effective scaling‐up frameworks and roadmaps have not been developed. The Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly (BBF) toolbox includes an evidence‐based index, the BBF Index (BBFI), to guide the development and tracking of large scale, well‐coordinated, multisector national breastfeeding promotion programmes. This paper describes the development of the BBFI, which is grounded in the Breastfeeding Gear Model complex adaptive systems framework. The BBFI was developed by the BBF Steering Committee in collaboration with a high‐level Technical Advisory Group following the Delphi consensus methodology. Key benchmarks and definitions were informed by evidence‐based health, nutrition, and newborn survival initiatives identified from the academic and grey literature. The BBFI consists of 8 gears (54 benchmarks): Advocacy (4); Political Will (3); Legislation and Policies (10); Funding and Resources (4); Training and Program Delivery (17); Promotion (3); Research and Evaluation (10); and Coordination, Goals, and Monitoring (3). Scores are generated for 8 gear scores plus a total country score to gauge the scaling‐up enabling environment. The BBFI provides an evidence‐based index to assist countries in (a) assessing their readiness to scale up breastfeeding programmes and (b) tracking scaling‐up progress.