Three quantitative intervention studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), six were non-randomised controlled

trials (nRCTs), one was a prospective cohort study and two were non-comparative studies (case series). Fifteen qualitative studies were evaluations of interventions (including seven evaluations of included interventions) and 11 were stand-alone qualitative studies investigating beliefs, attitudes and practice relating to dietary BIBW2992 manufacturer and physical activity behaviours. Two quantitative intervention studies were rated ++, eight were rated + and two were rated −. The main limitations to quality were poor description of the source population, lack of sufficient power or power calculations and lack of reported effect sizes PLX4032 in vivo (Supplementary Table 2). Eight qualitative studies were rated ++, 18 were rated + and none were rated −. The main quality limitations were reporting of participant characteristics and researcher/participant interaction, as well as data collection and analysis methods (Supplementary Table 3). Quantitative intervention studies were categorised as: dietary/nutritional; food retail; physical

activity; and multi-component interventions. The most common duration for an intervention was one year (Ashfield-Watt et al., 2007+; Bremner et al., 2006+; Cochrane and Davey, 2008+; Cummins et al., 2005+). Other interventions lasted between two weeks (Steptoe et al., 2003++) and six months (Lindsay et al., 2008+). One intervention lasted four years (Baxter

et al., 1997+). Intervention duration varied across different types of interventions. Two dietary/nutritional community-level interventions aimed to increase fruit and vegetable intake in deprived communities (Ashfield-Watt et al., 2007+; Bremner et al., 2006+) and four interventions involved enabling people to choose and cook healthy food (Kennedy et al., 1998−; McKellar et al., 2007+; Steptoe et al., 2003++; Wrieden et al., 2007+), one of which focused on promoting a Mediterranean-type diet (McKellar et al., 2007+). Overall, findings demonstrated mixed effectiveness (Supplementary Table 6). There was evidence of mixed 17-DMAG (Alvespimycin) HCl effectiveness on fruit and vegetable intake, consumption of high fat food, physiological measurements and nutrition knowledge. Evidence suggested no significant impact on weight control or other eating habits, such as intake of starchy foods, fish or fibre. Two interventions involved the introduction of a large-scale food retailing outlet in the intervention area (Cummins et al., 2005+; Wrigley et al., 2003−), and findings were mixed in terms of effectiveness (Supplementary Table 6). One study found a positive effect on psychosocial variables. Both studies indicated mixed effectiveness on fruit and vegetable intake, and evidence suggested no significant impact on health outcomes.