Current Nutrition Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 157–170 | Cite as

A Systematic Review of Methods for Increasing Vegetable Consumption in Early Childhood

Open Access
Food Acceptance and Nutrition in Infants and Young Children (H Coulthard, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Food Acceptance and Nutrition in Infants and Young Children

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This study aims to synthesise the body of research investigating methods for increasing vegetable consumption in 2- to 5-year-old children, while offering advice for practitioners.

Recent Findings

Repeated exposure is a well-supported method for increasing vegetable consumption in early childhood and may be enhanced with the inclusion of non-food rewards to incentivise tasting. Peer models appear particularly effective for increasing 2–5-year-olds’ vegetable consumption. There is little evidence for the effectiveness of food adaptations (e.g. flavour-nutrient learning) for increasing general vegetable intake among this age group, although they show some promise with bitter vegetables.

Summary

This review suggests that practitioners may want to focus their advice to parents around strategies such as repeated exposure, as well as the potential benefits of modelling and incentivising tasting with non-food rewards. Intervention duration varies greatly, and considerations need to be made for how this impacts on success.

Keywords

Child Repeated exposure Fussy eaters Peer modelling Non-food reward Bitter sensitive Intervention duration 

Introduction

The prevalence of paediatric obesity has increased significantly in recent years, with more than 40 million children under the age of 5 overweight or obese globally [1], and one in five reception-age children in the UK measuring as overweight or obese [2]. Concurrently, vegetable consumption in both adults and children falls below recommended levels in the UK [3], with less than one in five pre-schoolers consuming five portions of fruit or vegetables a day [4, 5].

Diets rich in fruits and vegetables can not only lower children’s caloric intake and reduce the risk of obesity [6] but can also serve to prevent against many non-communicable diseases [7, 8, 9, 10]. For example, raw and leafy green vegetables are thought to be particularly protective against cardiac events [11]. Meanwhile, recent evidence from the World Health Organisation asserts that low fruit and vegetable intake is one of the five leading behavioural and dietary risk factors for cancer development [12].

Although research implicates both fruits and vegetables in disease protection and prevention, it is known that whilst increasing fruit consumption has health benefits, fruits are also high in naturally occurring sugars. As a calorific compound, excess sugar consumption is a major contributor towards overweight and obesity [13], as well as type two diabetes. Furthermore, some research suggests that fructose consumption activates the digestive system in a different way to glucose, so that it does not stimulate insulin or leptin release [14]. This in turn can result in weight gain and an increased risk of diabetes. However, according to parental reports, 46% of foods disliked by children are vegetables, while just 8% are fruits [15]. With this in mind, efforts to increase vegetable consumption are needed and should be a focus for both researchers and practitioners.

Given the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables, and the fact that eating behaviours track across childhood and into adulthood [16, 17], it is important to establish a healthy level of intake of these foods early in life. With particularly low levels of vegetable intake in many young children [4, 5], it is important to focus on methods to increase vegetable consumption early in childhood, where the maximal benefits of a diet rich in vegetables can then be experienced across the lifespan.

Previous research has investigated a number of possible methods for increasing children’s intake of disliked foods, with most of this research focusing on the notion that children need to be exposed to new and disliked foods numerous times in order for them to become liked and accepted [18, 19]. A large number of studies have investigated the possible methods which can be used alongside repeated exposure to encourage children’s consumption of rejected foods, including using non-food rewards [20, 21, 22], parental modelling [23, 24], teacher modelling [25], peer modelling [26, 27, 28], flavour-flavour learning [19, 29, 30] and nutrient learning [31]. With a plethora of studies in the broad area of improving children’s consumption of foods, it is necessary to synthesise the relevant literature relating to young children’s consumption of vegetables. This will allow researchers to identify areas which require further investigation, whilst helping to ensure that practitioners and experts in the field have a clear view of the evidence base.

In summary, research suggests that vegetable consumption can provide a wide range of health benefits and seems to protect against a number of diseases. Furthermore, vegetables in particular have been shown to have positive effects on health outcomes, such as cardiac health, but are often poorly consumed by young children. To our knowledge, only two previous systematic reviews have been conducted on increasing children’s vegetable intake, but these have focused on a broader age range of children, and on interventions which tackle both fruit and vegetable consumption [32, 33]. The current systematic review therefore aims to fill a gap in the extant knowledgebase and focuses on the possible methods for increasing vegetable consumption in children aged 2 to 5 years.

Methods

Search Strategy

An online literature search was conducted using the search engines Web of Science and PubMed. Key terms relating to children’s consumption of vegetables were used to identify potentially relevant papers for this review. Key terms included child vegetable consumption, intervention, modelling, reward, flavour-flavour, flavour-nutrient, repeated exposure, messy play and tactile play. These search terms were utilised in various combinations, using the operator AND. Relevant articles were extracted up until November 2016.

Definition of Terms

Key terms were identified from the authors’ knowledge of the literature, some of which may require definition. One such key term was flavour-flavour learning, which is a method of learning to like a food by trying it repeatedly when paired with another food or flavour which is already liked [29]. Another key term used in this review is flavour-nutrient learning. Flavour-nutrient learning is the process by which a flavour becomes liked and accepted because it is associated with high nutrient content. A further key term is the method of modelling. Modelling is the process by which an individual or group of individuals demonstrates a behaviour which they would like another individual to perform and can be thought of as leading by example. This method is grounded in Social Learning Theory, which states that behaviour is learned by observation [34]. The last key term to be defined is reward. In the context of this review (and indeed the literature), a reward is defined as something which is given in exchange for a desired behaviour, which in the case of this literature is the tasting or consumption of vegetables. Rewards are described to the individual before a request for the behaviour is made (they are incentives), and the reward is only given if this behaviour is performed (they are contingent).

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To be eligible for inclusion in this review, articles were required to have increasing young children’s vegetable consumption as one of their main aims, children’s consumption of vegetables as the main outcome variable and to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Studies were also required to have an experimental design, where clear cause and effect of methods implemented could be ascertained. Papers were excluded if the children were younger than 2 or older than 5 years, if they did not target the general population (e.g. if they specifically targeted a clinical group or those with low consumption) or if the statistics for vegetable consumption alone were absent. Papers were also excluded if they were not published in English or if they employed a cross-sectional design rather than an experimental design.

Identification of Appropriate Articles

Initially, relevant papers were identified by screening the article titles. The abstract of relevant articles was then read to check that the paper aligned with the required inclusion and exclusion criteria. Those papers whose abstract either met these criteria or failed to adequately describe the details of these criteria were then downloaded and read in full (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of identification process for papers included in this systematic review

Data Extraction

Data were extracted from the included articles by the first author, on a standardised form developed for this review. Extracted data included author(s), date of publication, country of study, study aim, sample characteristics (sample size, age and other defining characteristics), the main method of increasing vegetable consumption being tested, design, methods, intervention duration, outcome measures, findings and take-home message. A summary of this information can be found in Table 1.
Table 1

Summary of extracted data from papers included in a systematic review of methods used to increase 2- to 5-year-olds’ consumption of vegetables

Authors

Year

Sample

Country/setting

Main method(s) used to encourage vegetable consumption

Design

Intervention duration

Findings

Take-home messages

Bouhlal et al. [35]

2014

151 2–3-year-olds

France/nursery

Repeated exposure (RE)

Flavour-flavour learning (FFL)

Between-subjects

8 exposures

Significantly increased liking and acceptance of a relatively novel and neutrally liked vegetable in all groups. Post-intervention increases highest among the RE group.

Increases in consumption (mean = 64 ± 11 g) maintained at 6 months

RE is a simple and effective method to increase vegetable intake in the short (5 weeks) and long term (6 months) in toddlers. No evidence of FFL

Capaldi-Phillips et al. [36]

2014

29 3–5-year-olds

USA/preschool

RE FFL/flavour-nutrient learning (FNL) (associative conditioning)

Between-subjects

7 exposures

Pairing tastings of Brussels sprouts with cream cheese (FFL) significantly increased children’s liking of Brussels sprouts regardless of type (FNL), and children who liked the sprouts more consumed significantly more (mean = 10.79 g) than children who disliked the sprouts (mean = 1.76 g). No difference in liking or consumption of cauliflower between groups (FFL, FNL or RE)

Associative conditioning with cream cheese (FFL) can significantly increase liking of bitter vegetables. RE was not effective at improving liking for bitter vegetables (Brussels sprouts) but it was for cauliflower

Correia et al. [37]

2014

57 children (mean age 4.4 years)

USA/preschool

Visual appeal FFL

Cluster randomised crossover design

Single session

Neither visual appeal enhancement nor pairing with a liked food (FFL) increased vegetable consumption. Pairing increased willingness to try the vegetable (defined as consumption of 3 g or more) from 79 to 95% of children

Pairing of a vegetable with a familiar food (FFL) may increase children’s willingness to try a vegetable

de Wild et al. [31]

2013

28 2–4-year-olds

Netherlands/preschool

FNL RE

Crossover intervention

7 weekly exposures

Significant increase in children’s consumption of a relatively novel and disliked vegetable soup post-intervention (mean = 58 g), 2- and 6-month follow-up. No effect of energy content of soup on children’s consumption (FNL).

High energy paired flavour of soup liked significantly more post-intervention, but this did not remain significant at 2-month follow-up

No evidence for FNL in consumption but tentative evidence for the effectiveness of FNL for increasing preference in the short term. Robust evidence of a repeated-exposure effect

de Wild et al. [38]

2015

39 1.5–4-year-olds

Netherlands/nursery

FFL RE

Crossover intervention

7 weekly exposures

Significant increase in consumption of relatively novel beetroot and parsnip crisps post-intervention (mean = 7–9 g), regardless of whether paired with familiar and liked ketchup or white sauce

No significant effect of FFL

Findings maintained at 2 and 6 months

RE is the primary mechanism for increasing vegetable consumption in young children, with evidence of long-term effects

de Wild, et al. [39]

2015

70 2–4-year-olds

Netherlands/home

Providing a choice of vegetables

Randomly assigned between subjects

12 occasions (6 different vegetables)

Significant but not robust model found to predict vegetable consumption including whether children were offered a choice, baseline liking, child age and gender. Whether children were offered a choice was not a significant predictor

Marginal but not robust effect of choice of vegetable on consumption. Effect of choice influenced by numerous other factors (e.g. age, liking)

Fildes et al. [40•]

2013

221 pairs of twin 3-year-olds

UK/home

Non-food rewards

Randomised controlled trial

14 daily exposures

Intake and liking of the target vegetable increased significantly more in children who experienced daily tastings of a disliked vegetable paired with stickers (mean = 4.07 ± 7.52 g) than control children (no treatment; mean = 0.61 g ±4.35)

Parent-administered interventions utilising non-food rewards can be effective for increasing children’s consumption of vegetables and do not require professional contact

Fisher et al. [41]

2012

152 3–5-year-olds

USA/preschool

FFL FNL

Between-subject design

13 daily exposures

No main effect of dip condition (FNL or FFL). But dip × bitter sensitivity interaction. Bitter-sensitive children ate 80% more of the bitter vegetable with dip or sauce (mean = 14.7 g) than vegetable served plain (mean = 8.1 g)

Dip/sauce (FFL) may be a successful method to increase consumption of brassicas among bitter-sensitive children

Gripshover et al. [42••]

2013

40 4–5-year-olds

USA/preschool

Nutrition education

Cluster randomised controlled trial

Maximum of 2 sessions per week for 12 weeks

Intervention children increased their consumption by significantly more pieces of vegetable (mean = 6.15 pieces) than control children (mean = 2.08 pieces)

Intuitive-theory-based nutrition education interventions could be effective in helping children eat healthier foods

Harnack et al. [43]

2012

53 2–5-year-olds

USA/preschool

Serving first—before the rest of the main meal

Randomised crossover experiment

10 daily sessions

No significant difference in vegetable intake when served in advance of the rest of meal compared to when served as part of a main meal for 2 weeks

Serving vegetables first does not appear to increase vegetable intake

Hausner et al. [44]

2012

104 2–3-year-olds

Denmark/nursery

FFL FNL RE

Non-randomised between subjects

10 exposures

Significantly increased consumption of a novel vegetable in both the FFL (5.8× baseline consumption) and RE (4.6× baseline consumption) groups after, maintained at 6 months post. No significant effect of FNL

RE effective for increasing vegetable consumption. Highly neophobic children (those with high levels of fear of new foods) may benefit from pairing vegetables with a known and liked flavour (FFL)

Holley et al. [45•]

2014

115 2–4-year-olds

UK/home

RE modelling non-food rewards

Non-randomised controlled trial

14 daily exposures

Significant increased consumption of a disliked vegetable in the modelling, non-food rewards and RE group (mean = 3.96 g) and in the non-food rewards and RE group (mean = 3.65 g), compared to the control group (mean = 1.14 g). Significant differences in liking of target disliked vegetable post-intervention, with liking highest in the modelling, non-food rewards and RE group

Parent-led interventions utilising non-food rewards and modelling alongside RE may be cost efficient for increasing children’s vegetable consumption

Horne et al. [46]

2011

20 children aged 24–52 months

UK/preschool

Mixed methods (modelling, non-food rewards)

Within subjects

30 days

Threefold increase in target vegetable consumption post-intervention (from 28.8 to 85.5% of ∼25 g portion), maintained at 6-month follow-up

Peer modelling and non-food rewards intervention successful in a preschool setting

Remington et al. [21]

2012

173 3–4-year-olds

UK/home

RE non-food rewards

Randomised controlled trial

12 daily exposures

Tangible non-food rewards increased children’s intake and liking of the disliked target vegetable significantly more than controls (mean difference = 1.27), maintained at 3-month follow-up. Social reward group not significantly different to control

Support for parental use of tangible non-food rewards with repeated taste exposures to improve children’s vegetable consumption

Roe et al. [47]

2013

61 3–5-year-olds

USA/nursery

Serving a variety of vegetables at once

Crossover design

4 sessions

Serving a variety of 3 vegetables significantly increased vegetable consumption (mean = 22 ± 1 g) compared to serving any of the vegetables individually

Serving a variety of vegetables as a snack could help preschool children meet recommended intakes

Spill et al. [48]

2011

72 3–5-year-olds

USA/nursery

Portion sizes

Crossover design

Single session

Increasing the portion size increased soup and vegetable intake. Largest portion (300 g soup, larger than an average serving for this age group) resulted in the highest consumption of soup (mean Δ = 25 g), while 150 g portion of soup (smaller than an average potion for this age group) resulted in significantly reduced intake of the concurrent main course

Serving low-energy-dense, vegetable soup as a first course is an effective strategy to reduce children’s intake of a concurrent main meal and increase vegetable consumption

Staiano, et al. [49]

2016

42 3–5-year-olds

USA/preschool

Modelling

Randomised controlled trial

Single session

Children who watched a video of a peer modelling vegetable consumption ate significantly more vegetables (mean = 15.5 g) and demonstrated higher preference for eating them again than two control groups (non-vegetable related video or no video; mean = 5.9 g) 7 days post-intervention, with no differences on post-intervention or 1 day post-intervention

Screen-based peer modelling is a promising tool to improve children’s vegetable consumption

Witt et al. [50]

2012

122 children (majority aged 4–5, no detail)

USA/nursery

Mixed methods (songs about vegetables, looking, touching and tasting)

Cluster randomised controlled trial

6 weeks

‘Colour Me Healthy’ programme significantly increased consumption of vegetable snack (mean Δ = 33.1%). No increase seen in control group

Childcare centres could be useful outlets for interventions. Mixed-methods interventions with various sensory activities seem effective at increasing vegetable consumption

Wolfenden et al. [51]

2014

328 3–5-year-olds

Australia/home

Mixed methods (increasing availability, parent modelling, family mealtimes)

Cluster randomised controlled trial

4 weeks

Significantly higher child vegetable intake at 12 months’ follow-up among intervention group (Children’s Dietary Questionnaire score mean = 2.95 ± 0.12) than control (mean = 2.47 ± 0.11). Increased consumption not maintained at 18 months

Telephone-based interventions seem effective, although these may need maintenance to promote long-term vegetable consumption

Results

The oldest papers included in the review were published in 2011, with the newest published in 2016. Multiple papers tested a number of methods for increasing children’s consumption of vegetables, including repeated exposure, flavour-flavour learning, flavour-nutrient learning, associative conditioning, rewards, modelling and visual aspects (e.g. presenting vegetables arranged in the shape of a caterpillar). Individual papers also explored additional methods such as portion size, variety, nutrition education, serving vegetables first and serving vegetables with dips. In order to facilitate discussion of study findings in this review, these methods were grouped according to common themes or were assigned their own section if methods were in stark contrast to those described in other sections. These themes were (1) repeated exposure, (2) food adaptations (including flavour-flavour learning, flavour-nutrient learning and visual presentation), (3) mealtime adaptations (such as serving vegetables first, serving larger portions of vegetables and providing a choice of vegetables), (4) social factors (including modelling and non-food rewards), (5) nutrition education and (6) mixed methods. Summaries of the findings, grouped according to these themes, appear below.

Repeated Exposure

Seven papers included in this review explored the effectiveness of repeated exposure alone for increasing children’s liking and consumption of vegetables [21, 31, 35, 36, 38, 44, 45]. With this method, children are repeatedly offered and encouraged to try a target vegetable, with papers in this review testing 7 to 14 exposures. In line with research among older children [22, 52, 53], all but one [36•] of these studies found good evidence for repeated exposure as an effective tool for increasing pre-school children’s consumption of vegetables, including at 6-month follow-up. In this one inconsistent study from Capaldi-Phillips et al. [36•], repeated exposure was effective for cauliflower liking but not for Brussels sprouts. In this study, the only measure of ‘success’ of repeated exposure was the proportion of children who liked or consumed the target vegetables after the 14-day conditioning period, where it is possible that repeated exposure may have increased the children’s consumption, but change in consumption was not measured. Moreover, Capaldi-Phillips et al. [36•] posit that repeated exposure has not previously been tested with extremely bitter vegetables as they did and may not be effective enough to transform consumption of these. This idea requires further testing with baseline and post-intervention data, as well as comparison with a control group. It should also be noted that many of the papers in this review have tested the ability of repeated exposure combined with other methods to increase young children’s vegetable consumption. In this way, repeated exposure can be considered the central method being tested in this review.

Food Adaptations

The largest proportion of papers (n = 9) captured in this review refers to making adaptations to vegetables in order to increase children’s consumption of these foods. These methods typically took one of three forms: flavour-flavour learning, flavour-nutrient learning and visual presentation. Six of these papers tested the effectiveness of flavour-flavour learning to increase children’s consumption of vegetables [35, 36•, 37, 38, 41, 44]. While most of these studies found no advantage of flavour-flavour learning beyond that of repeated exposure [35, 37, 38, 44], one study [41] suggests that offering familiar and liked dips to children who are sensitive to bitter tastes may be useful for increasing consumption of brassicae (green, cruciferous vegetables) in the short term when served with dip. Further to this, the research suggests pairing bitter vegetables (Brussels sprouts) with cream cheese (with or without added sugar) for 14 days can significantly increase children’s rated liking of Brussels sprouts when subsequently presented plain, although this did not increase their consumption [36•]. However, children who reported greater liking for the Brussels sprouts also consumed more of the sprouts than children who reported disliking the sprouts, which can be seen as an indirect effect on children’s consumption of the vegetable.

Four papers included in this review examined the possible utility of flavour-nutrient learning for increasing children’s consumption of vegetables [31, 36•, 41, 44]. However, none of these papers found a significant effect of flavour-nutrient learning on pre-school children’s consumption of vegetables. One of these studies found that adding energy in the form of oil to vegetable soup (which was hypothesised to cause flavour-nutrient learning) had no effect on children’s consumption of soup, although there was a significant short-term increase in liking for the soup with high energy content [31]. Moreover, Hausner et al. [44] found that adding oil to artichoke puree did not increase children’s consumption of the puree. Capaldi-Phillips et al. [36•] found that although serving with cream cheese could increase children’s liking of Brussels sprouts, and that children who liked the sprouts more consumed more when later served sprouts alone, this effect was not boosted when cream cheese was served with added sugar (and so had higher energy content). Finally, Fisher et al. [41] found that whilst serving broccoli with ranch dressing dip could increase bitter-sensitive children’s broccoli consumption, there was no difference in this effect when the energy content was manipulated.

Correia et al. [37] examined whether presenting vegetables in a visually appealing way could increase children’s consumption of vegetables. Here, cucumber was served either arranged in the shape of a caterpillar or simply served on a plate. The authors found that presenting cucumber in a visually appealing way did not increase children’s consumption of the cucumber.

Mealtime Adaptations

Four papers captured in this review referred to mealtime adaptations as possible methods for increasing vegetable consumption in early childhood. These ranged from serving vegetables first, to providing a choice, or serving a selection of vegetables, and also serving larger portions of vegetables. Harnack et al. [43] investigated whether serving vegetables 5 min before the rest of a meal could be an effective method for increasing vegetable consumption, but failed to find a significant effect of doing so. A study by de Wild et al. [39] examined whether giving young children a choice of vegetables could increase their concurrent consumption of vegetables. Children in the experimental group were given a choice between two vegetables at mealtimes for 12 days, while control group children were simply served a vegetable with each meal. The authors reported a significant but not robust effect of choice on children’s consumption. Here, choice was not a significant predictor of children’s consumption of vegetables. Roe et al. [47] compared children’s consumption of vegetables as a snack when serving a variety of vegetables, as opposed to being served any of the chosen vegetables individually. Serving a variety of vegetables was found to increase children’s consumption of vegetables. The last study to investigate the utility of mealtime adaptations tested whether serving larger portions of vegetables to young children could increase their consumption [48]. In this study, children were served a small, medium or large portion of tomato soup before their main meal, or no soup. It was found that increasing the portion of soup served at the beginning of the meal increased children’s consumption of the soup, and so their intake of vegetables.

Social Factors

Six papers explored the potential for social influences such as modelling and non-food rewards to increase pre-school children’s consumption of vegetables. Four papers examined the effects of non-food rewards [21, 40•, 45•, 46]. These papers unanimously found that pairing repeated exposure with rewards in the form of stickers was a successful method for increasing children’s liking and consumption of disliked vegetables.

Two papers looked at the effectiveness of modelling to increase children’s consumption of vegetables. Holley et al. [45•] examined whether caregivers trying a target disliked vegetable in front of their child before offering the vegetable to their child to try could increase their child’s willingness to try the vegetable, and consequently their consumption and liking of that vegetable. They found that offerings paired with modelling were not effective at increasing children’s liking or consumption of the target vegetable, but that offerings paired with both modelling and non-food rewards were. Staiano et al. [49] investigated whether viewing a video of a peer model consuming a vegetable could increase pre-schoolers’ consumption of that vegetable. It was found that children consumed significantly more of the target vegetable after viewing the peer modelling video than after viewing a similar video segment unrelated to food consumption.

Nutrition Education

Just one study [42••] investigated the impact of nutrition education at improving young children’s consumption of vegetables. In this study, children were educated on the nutritional importance of vegetables in general, including being read nutrition education books twice per week for a period of approximately 10 weeks. Children who had experienced this nutrition education significantly increased their vegetable consumption and ate more pieces of vegetables (mean = 6.15 pieces) than control children (mean = 2.08 pieces) during a post-intervention free-choice snack session in which a variety of foods were served which was identical to a pre-intervention session.

Mixed-Methods Interventions

Three papers explored the effect of mixed-methods interventions (i.e. where two or more methods were combined within experimental conditions) on children’s vegetable consumption [46, 50, 51]. These three papers used starkly contrasting methods. In the first, Horne and colleagues [46] examined the utility of an intervention containing both peer modelling and non-food reward components for increasing children’s consumption of vegetables. Children were shown videos of fictional cartoon peers consuming vegetables, as well as being read letters from the peers urging them to consume vegetables to help them save the world. Children who tasted and consumed vegetables were then rewarded with small rewards such as stickers, which accumulated resulted in larger non-food rewards. Children who participated in the intervention demonstrated significant increases in consumption of both vegetables specifically targeted by the intervention (from 28.8 to 85.5% of ∼25 g portion) as well as other vegetables (from 40.2 to 58.9% of a ∼25 g portion), and these increases were maintained at 6-month follow-up.

In the second mixed-methods paper, Wolfenden et al. [51] tested a 4-week intervention involving increasing availability of vegetables in the home and parental modelling of vegetable consumption, and supporting family mealtimes for its ability to increase pre-school children’s consumption of vegetables. It was found that children who participated in the intervention had significantly higher vegetable consumption at 12-month follow-up as measured by the Children’s Dietary Questionnaire [54], although this effect was not seen at 18-month follow-up.

The final mixed-methods paper in this review, from Witt et al. [50], investigated the efficacy of a 6-week education programme (colour me healthy) including songs about vegetables, looking at, touching and tasting vegetables for increasing children’s consumption of vegetables. Children in the intervention group significantly increased their consumption of vegetables 3 months post-intervention, although owing to the design of this study, it is unclear which method(s) this increase in consumption can be attributed to.

Discussion

This paper systematically reviewed and evaluated experimental research which aimed to increase vegetable consumption in children aged 2 to 5 years. The overall aim of this review was to assess the possible methods for increasing vegetable consumption in early childhood and to explore how effective these methods are. A total of 22 papers were included in the review, and these investigated a number of methods which could be grouped into common themes: repeated exposure, food adaptations, mealtime adaptations, social factors, nutrition education and mixed methods.

One well-documented method for increasing young children’s vegetable consumption is repeated exposure. All but one of the papers in this review which examined repeated exposure found it to be effective for increasing children’s consumption [21, 31, 35, 38, 44, 45]. These interventions which showed positive effects ranged from 7 to 14 days in duration. While previous research suggests that 15 exposures might be necessary to achieve acceptance of novel foods among 3- to 4-year-olds [19], this review suggests that seven exposures may in fact be sufficient for some children, at least in the short term. Further research is needed to establish whether this is long enough for promoting long-term vegetable acceptance and whether this depends on factors like temperament. It may be the case that while only 7 exposures are necessary to increase consumption in the short term, or in some children, 14 exposures are more beneficial for sustained increases in consumption, as shown by Remington and colleagues [55]. Capaldi-Phillips et al.’s [36•] study which failed to corroborate these positive results did not measure consumption change, and so it is possible that the repeated exposure group of children’s consumption did increase. Overall, this review supports the notion that repeated exposure is highly important for increasing children’s vegetable consumption.

This review highlighted that considerable research has been conducted into the possible utility of food adaptations for increasing consumption of vegetables among this young age group. However, the vast majority of this research has proven unsuccessful, with many studies failing to find support for flavour-flavour learning [35, 37, 38, 44] or flavour-nutrient learning [31, 36•]. That being said, there is some limited research which suggests that flavour-flavour learning may be a useful method for increasing young children’s liking and intake of bitter tasting vegetables, particularly among children who have higher sensitivity to this flavour dimension [34, 44]. With this in mind, flavour-flavour learning warrants further research, including long-term follow-up, specifically in relation to bitter vegetables to which many children have a natural aversion [56]. In summary, pairing disliked vegetables with liked flavours may be a useful method for increasing vegetable consumption in especially fussy children or with more bitter vegetables, but based on this review, it does not seem to warrant being recommended as a primary method of increasing vegetable consumption in children aged from 2 to 5 years.

A number of papers examined whether mealtime adaptations could improve children’s consumption of vegetables. While neither serving vegetables in advance of the rest of the meal nor offering children a choice of vegetables increased their consumption [36•, 52], serving children a variety of vegetables [47] and serving a large portion of vegetable soup as a first course to a meal was successful at increasing children’s intake of vegetables [48]. Although an interesting finding, serving an additional course at mealtimes may not be a feasible method for many parents, particularly given that the burden of preparation time and cost are commonly stated barriers to increasing vegetable consumption [57, 58, 59]. Moreover, it is possible that this method might result in parents offering too much food, which may have a negative impact on child weight. In support of this notion, previous research asserts that when served a larger portion adults and children eat more [60, 61], so parents should be cautious of increasing portion sizes of calorific foods. Overall, this research suggests that mealtime adaptations may not be the most useful methods for increasing young children’s vegetable consumption.

Social methods, including non-food rewards and modelling, have also been researched for their ability to increase children’s consumption of vegetables. All of the papers which investigated the utility of non-food rewards included in this review found that they were indeed effective for increasing pre-school children’s consumption of vegetables [21, 40•, 45•, 46], with evidence for results being maintained at 3-month [21] and 6-month follow-up [46]. Therefore, this review strongly supports the use of non-food rewards to incentivise children’s consumption of vegetables.

Modelling was another social method which was explored in this review. Here, findings were mixed, with one study indicating that parental modelling alone may not be sufficient to increase consumption but that it might be effective alongside other factors [45•], while another suggests that peer models may be effective [49]. Moreover, Horne et al.’s [46] mixed methods studies indicate that peer modelling can be a component of successful mixed-methods interventions; meanwhile, in studies by both Holley et al. [31] and Witt et al. [50], children who participated in an intervention including parent models consumed significantly more vegetables. This research indicates that among 2- to 5-year-olds, if taken as a standalone method, peer models may be more effective for eliciting behaviour change than parental models. It is possible that as children of this age are just beginning to form friendships that the power of peer models is different, with previous research suggesting that among older children models which are more admired are more powerful [62]. However, mixed-methods interventions appear to benefit from the inclusion of role models—be they peer or parent—for promoting increased vegetable consumption in children. It is apparent that pre-school children generally spend a larger amount of time with their parents than older children, including more shared mealtimes, and this may well moderate the impact of parental modelling for this age group.

Just one paper which qualified for this review investigated the utility of nutrition education for increasing vegetable consumption among pre-schoolers [42••]. With multiple studies exploring the efficacy of this method for older children, and finding it to be effective [63, 64], it may be that pre-schoolers are perceived as not as capable of understanding nutrition education. However, the paper that tested the efficacy of this method for young children found that children did indeed increase their vegetable consumption [42••]. Moreover, Witt et al.’s [50] mixed-methods study, which educated children about vegetables through songs, significantly increased children’s vegetable consumption for 12 months. This suggests that nutrition education may be feasible for this pre-schooler age group, and further research should explore this. It should be acknowledged that the significant results in Witt et al.’s [50] mixed-methods study could also be attributed to the sensory education and exposure which the children received in the forms of songs, site, touch and taste. Here, literature with both a younger and a broader age range of children suggests that sensory exposure can be used to increase children’s willingness to taste vegetables [65, 66].

This paper presents a systematic review of experimental published papers which have increasing vegetable consumption in 2- to 5-year-old children as a primary aim. As such, it synthesises the evidence base, allowing an unbiased observation of the progress of the field as a whole. However, it is limited to strictly those studies with participants aged from 2 to 5 years. This necessitated the exclusion of several studies which investigate possible methods to use with children aged from 4 to 6 years as well as those younger than two. It is possible that these studies can also contribute knowledge for 2- to 5-year-olds, and this review is not intended as a standalone information source for the entire field. Moreover, we have focused on only studies with an experimental design, and so may have missed out on naturalistic evidence to support methods for increasing children’s vegetable consumption. Furthermore, there are clear gaps in the knowledgebase of the field. For example, there is limited research into the long-term efficacy of many of the methods presented, with just one quarter of the studies included in this review reporting even a 6-month follow-up. Moreover, there is a precedent for unblinded trials in the field, where possible experimenter effects are not adequately discussed. Additionally, while some studies in this review demonstrate that a single session can result in changes in children’s consumption of vegetables [48, 49, 67], further evidence is needed to demonstrate that such methods can continue to work across multiple sessions, rather than demonstrating a novelty effect. Finally, it should be considered that although only findings pertaining to vegetables were included in this review, some of the studies did also seek to increase fruit consumption. It is possible that the mere presence of fruit in these studies may have had a detrimental effect on children’s consumption of the study vegetables, diluting intervention effects which may have otherwise been seen. In order to assess this notion, it would be interesting to compare the effects found in studies which only tackle vegetable consumption with those which seek to increase intake of both fruit and vegetables.

In summary, the current review demonstrates that repeated exposure is likely the most successful method of increasing vegetable in early childhood. However, it is clear that in order for children to achieve the tastings necessary to acquire liking and acceptance of vegetables, other methods might be necessary alongside repeated exposure. The literature presented in this systematic review suggests that non-food rewards are likely to be a successful method for achieving these tastings, where (as also stated in a previous review of reward literature [56, 68]) the over-justification hypothesis once presented as an argument against using rewards now seems implausible. Modelling may also be an effective tool, and this review suggests that this may be most effective as part of mixed-methods interventions. In terms of food adaptations, these seem unlikely to be beneficial for the majority of children or indeed the majority of vegetables, although future research should explore whether pairing vegetables with liked flavours may be useful with either particularly bitter vegetables, or particularly bitter-sensitive or fussy children. Lastly, nutrition education is an under-researched avenue for this age group, where the scant evidence that there is seems favourable. Researchers should consider how nutrition education programmes might be implemented in a suitable way for pre-school children. Having said this, it should be acknowledged that it is highly possible that gaps in the literature presented here may be due to publication bias, where those studies which have failed to garner significant findings have not been published. In reference to this, efforts should be made to ensure that the platform for publication is on the basis of methodology rather than findings.

Conclusion

Although vegetable consumption remains an area of concern for public health, more research is needed into which methods might be truly effective for increasing vegetable consumption in early childhood. Future research in this area should focus on (a) bitter vegetables most commonly rejected and (b) presenting longitudinal evidence of the efficacy of previously demonstrated methods. In conclusion, this review suggests that repeated exposure is a highly effective method for increasing children’s vegetable consumption which may benefit from being paired with modelling by peers or parents, as well as non-food rewards, with tentative evidence for the use of alternative methods which require further exploration.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

C.E.H., C.F. and E.H. declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    World Health Organisation. WHO | Obesity and overweight [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2014. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/.
  2. 2.
    Health and Social Care Information Centre. National Child Measurement Programme—England, 2013–14 [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/searchcatalogue?productid=16565&q=title%3a%22national+child+measurement+programme%22&sort=Relevance&size=10&page=1#top.
  3. 3.
    Public Health England & Food Standards Agency. National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Results from Years 1, 2, 3 and 4 (combined) of the Rolling Programme (2008/2009–2011/2012) [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310995/NDNS_Y1_to_4_UK_report.pdf.
  4. 4.
    Lennox A, Olson A, Gay C. National diet and nutrition survey. Headline results from years 1 to 4 [Internet]. 2011; Available from: http://www.foodafactoflife.org.uk/attachments/8921d124-960e-4f68d4b026f4.pdf.
  5. 5.
    Cockroft JE, Durkin M. Fruit and vegetable intakes in a sample of pre-school children participating in the “five for all” project in Bradford. Public Health Nutr. 2005;8(7):861–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCrory M, Fuss P. Dietary variety within food groups: association with energy intake and body fatness in men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69(3):440–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    American Institute for Cancer Research, World Cancer Research Fund International. Food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Washington DC; 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cox BD, Whichelow MJ, Prevost AT. Seasonal consumption of salad vegetables and fresh fruit in relation to the development of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Public Health Nutr. 2007;3(1):19–29.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Southon S. Increased fruit and vegetable consumption within the EU: potential health benefits. Food Res Int. 2000;33(3–4):211–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    La Vecchia C, Decarli A, Pagano R. Vegetable consumption and risk of chronic disease. Epidemiology. 1998;9(2):208–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klerk M, Jansen MC, Veer P, Kok FJ. Fruits and vegetables in chronic disease prevention. Wageningen; 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    World Health Organisation. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health [Internet]. 2015. Available from: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/background/en/.
  13. 13.
    Kuhnle GG, Tasevska N, Lentjes MA, Griffin JL, Sims MA, Richardson L, et al. Association between sucrose intake and risk of overweight and obesity in a prospective sub-cohort of the European prospective investigation into cancer in Norfolk (EPIC-Norfolk). Public Health Nutr. 2015;23:1–10.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elliott SS, Keim NL, Stern JS, Teff K, Havel PJ. Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(5):911–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cashdan E. Adaptiveness of food learning and food aversions in children. Soc Sci Inf. 1998;37(4):613–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mikkilä V, Räsänen L, Raitakari OT, Pietinen P, Viikari J. Consistent dietary patterns identified from childhood to adulthood: the cardiovascular risk in young Finns study. Br J Nutr. 2007;93(6):923–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Northstone K, Emmett PM. Are dietary patterns stable throughout early and mid-childhood? A birth cohort study. Br J Nutr. 2008;100(5):1069–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Birch LL, Marlin DW. I don’t like it; I never tried it: effects of exposure on two-year-old children’s food preferences. Appetite. 1982;3(4):353–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sullivan SA, Birch LL. Pass the sugar, pass the salt: experience dictates preference. Dev Psychol. 1990;26(4):546–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Añez EV, Remington A, Wardle J, Cooke LJ. The impact of instrumental feeding on children’s responses to taste exposure. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2013;26(5):415–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Remington A, Anez E, Croker H, Wardle J, Cooke LJ. Increasing food acceptance in the home setting: a randomized controlled trial of parent-administered taste exposure with incentives. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95(1):72–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Corsini N, Slater A, Harrison A, Cooke LJ, Cox D. Rewards can be used effectively with repeated exposure to increase liking of vegetables in 4–6-year-old children. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(5):942–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Draxten M, Fulkerson JA, Friend S, Flattum CF, Schow R. Parental role modeling of fruits and vegetables at meals and snacks is associated with children’s adequate consumption. Appetite. 2014;78:1–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palfreyman Z, Haycraft E, Meyer C. Development of the Parental Modelling of Eating Behaviours Scale (PARM): links with food intake among children and their mothers. Matern Child Nutr [Internet]. 2014;10(4):617–29. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22906242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hendy HM, Greco M, Hunter K, Keen R, Koch B, Sauerwine D, et al. Comparison of five teacher actions to encourage children’s new food acceptance. Ann Behav Med. 1999;21(1):20–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greenhalgh J, Dowey AJ, Horne PJ, Fergus LC, Griffiths JH, Whitaker CJ. Positive- and negative peer modelling effects on young children’s consumption of novel blue foods. Appetite. 2009;52(3):646–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Horne PJ, Lowe CF, Fleming PFJ, Dowey AJ. An effective procedure for changing food preferences in 5–7-year-old children. Proc Nutr Soc. 1995;54(2):441–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Horne PJ, Tapper K, Lowe CF, Hardman CA, Jackson MC, Woolner J. Increasing children’s fruit and vegetable consumption: a peer-modelling and rewards-based intervention. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004;58(12):1649–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Havermans R, Jansen A. Increasing children’s liking of vegetables through flavour–flavour learning. Appetite. 2007;48(2):259–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pliner P, Stallberg-White C. “Pass the ketchup, please”: familiar flavors increase children’s willingness to taste novel foods. Appetite. 2000;34(1):95–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Wild V, de Graaf C, Jager G. Effectiveness of flavour nutrient learning and mere exposure as mechanisms to increase toddler’s intake and preference for green vegetables. Appetite. 2013;64:89–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wolfenden L, Wyse RJ, Britton BI, Campbell KJ, Hodder RK, Stacey FG, et al. Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged 5 years and under. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD008552.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Knai C, Pomerleau J, Lock K, McKee M. Getting children to eat more fruit and vegetables: a systematic review. Prev Med (Baltim). 2006;42(2):85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bouhlal S, Issanchou S, Chabanet C, Nicklaus S. “Just a pinch of salt”. An experimental comparison of the effect of repeated exposure and flavor-flavor learning with salt or spice on vegetable acceptance in toddlers. Appetite. 2014;83:209–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    • Capaldi-Phillips E, Wadhera D. Associative conditioning can increase liking for and consumption of brussels sprouts in children aged 3 to 5 years. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2014;114(8):1236–41. This study uses a neat design to compare the effects of FFL and FNL for various vegetables, allowing comparison of effects for vegetables with different flavour profiles.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Correia DCS, O’Connell ML, Irwin ML, Henderson KE. Pairing vegetables with a liked food and visually appealing presentation: promising strategies for increasing vegetable consumption among preschoolers. Child Obes. 2014;10(1):72–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    de Wild V, de Graaf C, Jager G. Efficacy of repeated exposure and flavour–flavour learning as mechanisms to increase preschooler’s vegetable intake and acceptance. Pediatr Obes. 2015;10(3):205–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Wild V, de Graaf C, Boshuizen H, Jager G. Influence of choice on vegetable intake in children: an in-home study. Appetite. 2015;91:1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    • Fildes A, van Jaarsveld CHM, Wardle J, Cooke LJ. Parent-administered exposure to increase children’s vegetable acceptance: a randomized controlled trial. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013;114(6):1–8. This study investigates the efficacy of a mailed intervention, which presents a promising avenue for implementation.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fisher J, Mennella J, Hughes S. Offering “dip” promotes intake of a moderately-liked raw vegetable among preschoolers with genetic sensitivity to bitterness. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112(2):235–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    •• Gripshover S, Markman E. Teaching young children a theory of nutrition conceptual change and the potential for increased vegetable consumption. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(8):1541–53. This is the sole study to investigate nutrition education among this age group, and provides key evidence for its potential utility for increasing vegetable consumption CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Harnack L, Oakes J. Results from an experimental trial at a head start center to evaluate two meal service approaches to increase fruit and vegetable intake of preschool aged. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:–51.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hausner H, Olsen A, Møller P. Mere exposure and flavour-flavour learning increase 2–3 year-old children’s acceptance of a novel vegetable. Appetite. 2012;58(3):1152–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    • Holley CE, Haycraft E, Farrow C. ‘Why don’t you try it again?’ a comparison of parent led, home based interventions aimed at increasing children’s consumption of a disliked vegetable. Appetite. 2014;87:215–22. This study utilises multiple experimental groups to fully unpack the effects of the various components of the intervention.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Horne PJ, Greenhalgh J, Erjavec M, Lowe CF, Viktor S, Whitaker CJ. Increasing pre-school children’s consumption of fruit and vegetables. A modelling and rewards intervention. Appetite. 2011;56(2):375–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Roe L, Meengs J. Serving a variety of vegetables and fruit as a snack increased intake in preschool children. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(3):693–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Spill M, Birch L, Roe L, Rolls B. Serving large portions of vegetable soup at the start of a meal affected children’s energy and vegetable intake. Appetite. 2011;57(1):213–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Staiano A, Marker A, Frelier J. Influence of screen-based peer modeling on preschool children’s vegetable consumption and preferences. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016;48(5):331–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Witt K, Dunn C. Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among preschoolers: evaluation of color me 1. Witt K, Dunn C. Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among preschoolers: evaluation of color me healthy. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2012;44(2):107–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wolfenden L, Wyse R. Randomized controlled trial of a telephone-based intervention for child fruit and vegetable intake: long-term follow-up. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;99(3):543–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Williams KE, Paul C, Pizzo B, Riegel K. Practice does make perfect. A longitudinal look at repeated taste exposure. Appetite. 2008;51(3):739–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wardle J, Herrera M-LL, Cooke LJ, Gibson EL. Modifying children’s food preferences: the effects of exposure and reward on acceptance of an unfamiliar vegetable. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003;57(2):341–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Magarey A, Golley R, Spurrier N, Goodwin E, Ong F. Reliability and validity of the Children’s Dietary Questionnaire; a new tool to measure children’s dietary patterns. Int J Pediatr Obes [Internet]. 2009;4(4):257–65. Available from: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/17477160902846161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Remington A, An E, Croker H. Increasing food acceptance in the home setting: a randomized controlled trial of parent-administered taste exposure with incentives. Am J Clin Nutr [Internet]. 2012; Available from: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/1/72.short.
  56. 56.
    McBurney D, Gent J. On the nature of taste qualities. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(1):151–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fulkerson JA, Kubik MY, Rydell S, Boutelle KN, Garwick A, Story M, et al. Focus groups with working parents of school-aged children: what’s needed to improve family meals? J Nutr Educ Behav. 2011;43(3):189–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nepper MJ, Chai W. Parents’ barriers and strategies to promote healthy eating among school-age children. Appetite. 2016;103:157–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Holley CE, Farrow C, Haycraft E. Investigating offering of vegetables by caregivers of preschool age children. Child Care Health Dev. 2016.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rolls BJ, Morris EL, Roe LS. Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Am J Clin Nutr [Internet]. 2002;76(6):1207–13. Available from: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/6/1207.abstract Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Orlet Fisher J, Rolls BJ, Birch LL. Children’s bite size and intake of an entrée are greater with large portions than with age-appropriate or self-selected portions. Am J Clin Nutr [Internet]. 2003;77(5):1164–70. Available from: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/77/5/1164.abstract Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Houldcroft L, Haycraft E, Farrow C. Peer and friend influences on children’s eating. Soc Dev [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sode.12036/full
  63. 63.
    Cullen KW, Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS. Girl scouting: an effective channel for nutrition education. J Nutr Educ [Internet]. 1997;29(2):86–91. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022318297701602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Baranowski T, Baranowski J, Cullen KW, Marsh T, Islam N, Zakeri I, et al. Squire’s Quest! Am J Prev Med [Internet]. 2003;24(1):52–61. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379702005706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hoppu U, Prinz M, Ojansivu P, Laaksonen O, Sandell MA. Impact of sensory-based food education in kindergarten on willingness to eat vegetables and berries. Food Nutr Res [Internet]. 2015;59:28795. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4676364&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dazeley P, Houston-Price C. Exposure to foods’ non-taste sensory properties. A nursery intervention to increase children’s willingness to try fruit and vegetables. Appetite [Internet]. 2015;84:1–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25218879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Correia D, O’Connell M. Pairing vegetables with a liked food and visually appealing presentation: promising strategies for increasing vegetable consumption among preschoolers. Child Obes [Internet]. 2014; Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/chi.2013.0115.
  68. 68.
    Cooke LJ, Chambers LC, Añez EV, Wardle J. Facilitating or undermining? The effect of reward on food acceptance. A narrative review. Appetite. 2011 Oct;57(2):493–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clare E. Holley
    • 1
  • Claire Farrow
    • 2
  • Emma Haycraft
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Sport, Exercise and Health SciencesLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  2. 2.School of Health & Life SciencesAston UniversityBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations