Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29282031›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2017

Competing with big business: a randomised experiment testing the effects of messages to promote alcohol and sugary drink control policy.

Maree Scully, Emily Brennan, Sarah Durkin, Helen Dixon, Melanie Wakefield, Colleen L Barry, Jeff Niederdeppe

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The narrative truth about scientific misinformation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Review
  5. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maree ScullyCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 615 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Emily BrennanCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 615 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Sarah DurkinCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 615 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Helen DixonCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 615 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Melanie WakefieldCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 615 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. Melanie.Wakefield@cancervic.org.au.
Colleen L BarryDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Jeff NiederdeppeDepartment of Communication, Cornell University, 476 Mann Library Building, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Cancer Council Victoria · AUCornell University · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-based policies encouraging healthy behaviours are often strongly opposed by well-funded industry groups. As public support is crucial for policy change, public health advocates need to be equipped with strategies to offset the impact of anti-policy messages. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of theory-based public health advocacy messages in generating public support for sugary drink/alcohol policies (increased taxes; sport sponsorship bans) and improving resistance to subsequent anti-policy messages typical of the sugary drink/alcohol industry.

methodsWe conducted a two-wave randomised online experiment assigning Australian adults to one of four health policies (sugary drink tax; sugary drink industry sports sponsorship ban; alcohol tax; alcohol industry sports sponsorship ban). Within each health policy, we randomised participants to one of five message conditions: (i) non-advocacy based message about the size and seriousness of the relevant health issue (control); (ii) standard pro-policy arguments alone; (iii) standard pro-policy arguments combined with an inoculation message (forewarning and directly refuting anti-policy arguments from the opposition); (iv) standard pro-policy arguments combined with a narrative message (a short, personal story about an individual's experience of the health issue); or (v) standard pro-policy arguments combined with a composite inoculation and narrative message. At time 1, we exposed participants (n = 6000) to their randomly assigned message. Around two weeks later, we re-contacted participants (n = 3285) and exposed them to an anti-policy message described as being from a representative of the sugary drink/alcohol industry. Generalised linear models tested for differences between conditions in policy support and anti-industry beliefs at both time points.

resultsOnly the standard argument plus narrative message increased policy support relative to control at time 1. The standard argument plus narrative and standard argument plus inoculation messages were effective at increasing resistance to the persuasive impact of anti-policy messages relative to control at time 2.

conclusionsDissemination of advocacy messages using inoculation or narrative components can help strengthen public resistance to subsequent anti-policy messages from industry groups.

Indexed as

BeveragesHealth PolicySweetening AgentsAdolescentAdultAgedAlcohol DrinkingAustraliaCommerceFemaleHealth BehaviorHealth CommunicationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersuasive CommunicationSweetening AgentsAdvocacy messagesAlcoholCompetitive framingHealth behaviourHealth communicationHealth policySugary drinks

Identifiers

PMID29282031
PMCPMC5745776
OpenAlexW2773970054

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.