Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27297225›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

Impact of altering proximity on snack food intake in individuals with high and low executive function: study protocol.

Jennifer A Hunter, Gareth J Hollands, Dominique-Laurent Couturier, Theresa M Marteau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. The real deal: Willingness-to-pay and satiety expectations are greater for real foods versus their images.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jennifer A HunterBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Gareth J HollandsBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Dominique-Laurent CouturierBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Theresa M MarteauBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. tm388@medschl.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0400634Medical Research Council G0500274
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite attempts to improve diet at population level, people living in material and social deprivation continue to consume unhealthy diets. Executive function - the ability to regulate behaviour and resist impulses - is weaker in individuals living in deprivation. Dietary interventions that educate and persuade people to reflect on and actively change behaviour may therefore disproportionately benefit individuals who are socioeconomically advantaged and have stronger executive function, thus exacerbating inequalities in health resulting from unhealthy diets. In contrast, manipulating environmental cues, such as how far away a food is placed, does not appeal to reasoned action and is thought to operate largely outside of awareness to influence behaviour. People eat more of a food when it is placed closer to them, an effect seemingly robust to context, food quality and body-weight status. However, previous studies of this 'proximity effect' are limited by small samples consisting mainly of university staff or students, biased towards higher socio-economic position and therefore likely stronger executive function. This study aims to test the hypothesis that placing food further away from a person decreases intake of that food regardless of executive function. METHODS/

design156 members of the general public, recruited from low and high socio-economic groups, will be randomised to one of two conditions varying in the proximity of a snack food relative to their position: 20 cm or 70 cm. Participants are told they will be taking part in a relaxation study - and are fully debriefed at the conclusion of the session. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants eating any amount of snack food and the secondary outcome is the mean amount eaten. Executive function is assessed using the Stroop task. DISCUSSION: The proposed study takes a novel step by investigating the effect of proximity on snack food intake in a general population sample consisting of those with high and low executive function, appropriately powered to detect the predicted proximity effect. If this effect occurs irrespective of executive function and socio-economic position, it may have potential to reduce inequalities patterned by socio-economic position if implemented in real-world settings such as shops or restaurants.

trial registrationRegistered with the ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN46995850 on 07 October 2015.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionHealth BehaviorAdultCuesEatingFeeding BehaviorFemaleHumansInhibition, PsychologicalMaleSnacksSocioeconomic FactorsStroop TestDietary behaviourExecutive functionPlacementProximitySnack foodSocio-economic position

Identifiers

PMID27297225
PMCPMC4906733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.