Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33256737›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2020

Understanding the influence of physical resources and social supports on primary food providers' snack food provision: a discrete choice experiment.

Brittany J Johnson, Rebecca K Golley, Dorota Zarnowiecki, Gilly A Hendrie, Elisabeth K Huynh

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Brittany J JohnsonCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing & Health Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia. brittany.johnson@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5492-9219
Rebecca K GolleyCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing & Health Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia.
Dorota ZarnowieckiCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing & Health Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia.
Gilly A HendrieHealth & Biosecurity Flagship, Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Elisabeth K HuynhDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Acton, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSnack eating occasions contribute approximately a third of children's energy intake, with approximately half of all unhealthy foods consumed during snack times. Therefore, it is critical to understand the drivers of primary food providers' snack provision. The study aims were to determine the relative importance of physical resources and social supports when primary food providers are choosing snacks to provide to their child, and to investigate how these attributes differ in social versus non-social occasions, and between subgroups of primary food providers based on socio-economic position.

methodsPrimary food providers of three to seven-year olds completed an online discrete choice experiment, by making trade-offs when completing repeated, hypothetical choice tasks on the choice of snacks to provide to their child in: 1) non-social and 2) social condition. Choice tasks included two alternatives consisting of varying attribute (i.e. factor) levels, and an opt-out option. The order of conditions shown were randomized across participants. Multinomial logit model analyses were used to determine utility weights for each attribute.

resultsTwo-hundred and twenty-five primary food providers completed the study, providing 1125 choice decisions per condition. In the non-social condition, the top three ranked attributes were type of food (utility weight 1.94, p < 0.001), child resistance (- 1.62, p < 0.001) and co-parent support (0.99, p < 0.001). In the social condition, top ranking attributes were child resistance (utility weight - 1.50, p < 0.001), type of food (1.38, p < 0.001) and co-parent support (1.07, p < 0.001). In both conditions, time was not a significant influence and cost was of lowest relative importance. Subgroup analyses revealed cost was not a significant influence for families from higher socio-economic backgrounds.

conclusionsType of food, child resistance and co-parent support were of greatest relative importance in primary food providers' snack provision decision-making, regardless of social condition or socio-economic position. In designing future interventions to reduce unhealthy snacks, researchers should prioritize these influences, to better support primary food providers in changing their physical and social opportunity.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry no. ACTR N12618001173280.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorFood PreferencesSnacksSocial SupportAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolDecision MakingEnergy IntakeFeeding BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleMealsParentsSocioeconomic FactorsDecision makingDiscrete choice experimentFood choiceOpportunityPrimary food providersSnacksUnhealthy foodsYoung children

Identifiers

PMID33256737
PMCPMC7706064

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.