Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 101

1.

Exploring subgroup effects by socioeconomic position of three effective school-based dietary interventions: the European TEENAGE project.

Lien N, Haerens L, te Velde SJ, Mercken L, Klepp KI, Moore L, de Bourdeaudhuij I, Faggiano F, van Lenthe FJ.

Int J Public Health. 2014 Jun;59(3):493-502. doi: 10.1007/s00038-013-0524-8. Epub 2013 Nov 9.

PMID:
24212326
2.

Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact.

McGill R, Anwar E, Orton L, Bromley H, Lloyd-Williams F, O'Flaherty M, Taylor-Robinson D, Guzman-Castillo M, Gillespie D, Moreira P, Allen K, Hyseni L, Calder N, Petticrew M, White M, Whitehead M, Capewell S.

BMC Public Health. 2015 May 2;15:457. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1781-7. Review. Erratum in: BMC Public Health. 2015;15:894.

3.

Will European agricultural policy for school fruit and vegetables improve public health? A review of school fruit and vegetable programmes.

de Sa J, Lock K.

Eur J Public Health. 2008 Dec;18(6):558-68. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn061. Epub 2008 Aug 21. Review.

PMID:
18719006
4.

Association between fruits and vegetables intake and frequency of breakfast and snacks consumption: a cross-sectional study.

Lazzeri G, Pammolli A, Azzolini E, Simi R, Meoni V, de Wet DR, Giacchi MV.

Nutr J. 2013 Aug 27;12:123. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-12-123.

5.

Implementation of strategies to increase adolescents' access to fruit and vegetables at school: process evaluation findings from the Boost study.

Aarestrup AK, Suldrup Jørgensen T, Jørgensen SE, Hoelscher DM, Due P, Krølner R.

BMC Public Health. 2015 Feb 6;15:86. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1399-9.

6.

The role of socio-economic position as a moderator of children's healthy food intake.

Zarnowiecki DM, Parletta N, Dollman J.

Br J Nutr. 2014 Sep 14;112(5):830-40. doi: 10.1017/S0007114514001354. Epub 2014 Jun 23.

PMID:
24955492
7.
8.

Describing socioeconomic gradients in children's diets - does the socioeconomic indicator used matter?

Zarnowiecki D, Ball K, Parletta N, Dollman J.

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014 Mar 28;11(1):44. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-44.

9.

Does the importance of dietary costs for fruit and vegetable intake vary by socioeconomic position?

Mackenbach JD, Brage S, Forouhi NG, Griffin SJ, Wareham NJ, Monsivais P.

Br J Nutr. 2015 Nov 14;114(9):1464-70. doi: 10.1017/S0007114515003025. Epub 2015 Sep 10.

10.

Personal, social and environmental factors regarding fruit and vegetable intake among schoolchildren in nine European countries.

Sandvik C, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Due P, Brug J, Wind M, Bere E, Pérez-Rodrigo C, Wolf A, Elmadfa I, Thórsdóttir I, Vaz de Almeida MD, Yngve A, Klepp KI.

Ann Nutr Metab. 2005 Jul-Aug;49(4):255-66. Epub 2005 Aug 3.

PMID:
16088089
11.
12.

Fruit and vegetable intake is associated with frequency of breakfast, lunch and evening meal: cross-sectional study of 11-, 13-, and 15-year-olds.

Pedersen TP, Meilstrup C, Holstein BE, Rasmussen M.

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Feb 6;9:9. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-9.

13.

Implementing a free school-based fruit and vegetable programme: barriers and facilitators experienced by pupils, teachers and produce suppliers in the Boost study.

Aarestrup AK, Krølner R, Jørgensen TS, Evans A, Due P, Tjørnhøj-Thomsen T.

BMC Public Health. 2014 Feb 11;14:146. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-146.

14.

Associations between school meals offered through the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program and fruit and vegetable intake among ethnically diverse, low-income children.

Robinson-O'Brien R, Burgess-Champoux T, Haines J, Hannan PJ, Neumark-Sztainer D.

J Sch Health. 2010 Oct;80(10):487-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00532.x.

15.

[School-based education strategies to promote fruit and vegetable consumption: the Pro Children Project].

Pérez Rodrigo C, Aranceta J, Brug H, Wind M, Hildonen Ch, Klepp KI.

Arch Latinoam Nutr. 2004 Jun;54(2 Suppl 1):14-9. Spanish.

PMID:
15584467
16.

The role of curriculum dose for the promotion of fruit and vegetable intake among adolescents: results from the Boost intervention.

Jørgensen TS, Rasmussen M, Aarestrup AK, Ersbøll AK, Jørgensen SE, Goodman E, Pedersen TP, Due P, Krølner R.

BMC Public Health. 2015 Jun 5;15:536. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1840-0.

17.

A cluster-randomised controlled trial of a school-based fruit and vegetable intervention: Project Tomato.

Evans CE, Ransley JK, Christian MS, Greenwood DC, Thomas JD, Cade JE.

Public Health Nutr. 2013 Jun;16(6):1073-81. doi: 10.1017/S1368980012005290. Epub 2012 Dec 14.

PMID:
23237386
18.

The PRO GREENS intervention in Finnish schoolchildren - the degree of implementation affects both mediators and the intake of fruits and vegetables.

Lehto R, Määttä S, Lehto E, Ray C, Te Velde S, Lien N, Thorsdottir I, Yngve A, Roos E.

Br J Nutr. 2014 Oct 14;112(7):1185-94. doi: 10.1017/S0007114514001767. Epub 2014 Aug 8.

PMID:
25106046
19.

One year of free school fruit in Norway--7 years of follow-up.

Bere E, te Velde SJ, Småstuen MC, Twisk J, Klepp KI.

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Nov 10;12:139. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0301-6.

20.

The effects of the Food Dudes Programme on children's intake of unhealthy foods at lunchtime.

Upton P, Taylor C, Upton D.

Perspect Public Health. 2015 May;135(3):152-9. doi: 10.1177/1757913914526163. Epub 2014 Mar 20.

PMID:
24651758

Supplemental Content

Support Center