Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33517908›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2021

Impact of increasing the availability of healthier vs. less-healthy food on food selection: a randomised laboratory experiment.

Rachel Pechey, Olivia Sexton, Saphsa Codling, Theresa M Marteau

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Association of the built environment and neighborhood resources with obesity-related health behaviors in older veterans with hypertension.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Food Availability, Motivational-Related Factors, and Food Consumption: A Path Model Study with Children.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  7. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel PecheyBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. rachel.pechey@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6558-388X
Olivia SextonBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Saphsa CodlingBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Theresa M MarteauBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health Research PR-UN-0409-10109Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 106679/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnvironmental cues shape behaviour, but few studies compare the impact of targeting healthier vs. less-healthy cues. One online study suggested greater impact on selection from increasing the number of less-healthy (vs. healthier) snacks. The current study aimed to: (1) extend the previous study by using physically-present snacks for immediate consumption; (2) explore responsiveness by socio-economic position; (3) investigate possible mediators (response inhibition, food appeal) of any socio-economic differences in selection.

methodsIn a between-subjects laboratory experiment UK adults (n = 417) were randomised according to their ID number (without blinding) to one of three ranges of options: Two healthier, two less-healthy ["Equal"] (n = 136); Six healthier, two less-healthy ["Increased Healthier"] (n = 143); Two healthier, six less-healthy ["Increased Less-Healthy"] (n = 138). Participants completed measures of response inhibition and food appeal, and selected a snack for immediate consumption from their allocated range. The primary outcome was selection of a healthier (over less-healthy) snack.

resultsThe odds of selecting a less-healthy snack were 2.9 times higher (95%CIs:1.7,5.1) in the Increased Less-Healthy condition compared to the Equal condition. The odds of selecting a healthier snack were 2.5 times higher (95%CIs:1.5,4.1) in the Increased Healthier (vs. Equal) condition. There was no significant difference in the size of these effects (- 0.2; 95%CIs:-1.1,0.7). Findings were inconclusive with regard to interactions by education, but the direction of effects was consistent with potentially larger impact of the Increased Healthier condition on selection for higher-educated participants, and potentially larger impact of the Increased Less-Healthy condition for less-educated participants.

conclusionsA greater impact from increasing the number of less-healthy (over healthier) foods was not replicated when selecting snacks for immediate consumption: both increased selections of the targeted foods with no evidence of a difference in effectiveness. The observed pattern of results suggested possible differential impact by education, albeit not statistically significant. If replicated in larger studies, this could suggest that removing less-healthy options has the potential to reduce health inequalities due to unhealthier diets. Conversely, adding healthier options could have the potential to increase these inequalities.

trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN34626166 ; 11/06/2018; Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

LaboratoriesSnacksAdultChoice BehaviorCuesFood PreferencesFood SupplyHumansAbsolute-and-relative availabilityFood appealFood selectionHealth inequalitiesResponse inhibitionSocioeconomic position

Identifiers

PMID33517908
PMCPMC7849186
OpenAlexW3128391256

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.