Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35093794›Full record

Trial reportSocial science & medicine (1982)2022

Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits.

Eleni Mantzari, James P Reynolds, Susan A Jebb, Gareth J Hollands, Mark A Pilling, Theresa M Marteau

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Social science & medicine (1982), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Gun-Related Beliefs as Predictors of Gun Policy Support: Findings from the Nationally Representative GRIP Survey.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. An Urgent Call to Integrate the Health Sector into theInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

6 authors.

Eleni MantzariBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
James P ReynoldsBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Susan A JebbNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK.
Gareth J HollandsBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Mark A PillingBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Theresa M MarteauBehaviour and Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: tm388@medschl.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 206853/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective interventions for reducing the consumption of products that harm population and planetary health often lack public support, impeding implementation. Communicating evidence of policies' effectiveness can increase public support but there is uncertainty about the most effective ways of communicating this evidence. Some policies have multiple benefits such as both improving health and the environment. This study assesses whether communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits of a policy increases its support.

methodParticipants (n = 4616) nationally representative of the British population were randomised to one of 24 groups in an online experiment with a 4 × 3 × 2 between-subjects factorial design. The messages that participants viewed differed according to the evidence they communicated (no message, effectiveness for changing behaviour, effectiveness for changing behaviour + one policy benefit, effectiveness for changing behaviour + three policy benefits), type of policy (taxation, availability) and the target behaviour (consumption of energy-dense food, alcohol, or meat). The primary outcome was policy support.

resultsIn a full factorial ANOVA, there was a significant main effect of communicating evidence of effectiveness on policy support, which was similar across policies and behaviours. Communicating three benefits increased support relative to communicating one benefit (d = 0.15; p = 0.01). Communicating one benefit increased support compared to providing evidence for changing behaviour alone (d = 0.13; p = 0.004) or no message (d = 0.11 p = 0.022).

conclusionCommunicating evidence of a policy's benefits increases support for policy action across different behaviours and policies. Presenting multiple benefits of policies enhances public support.

Indexed as

Health PolicyTaxesHumansAcceptabilityBenefitCommunicationEvidencePlanetary healthPolicyPopulation healthPublic support

Identifiers

PMID35093794
PMCPMC8907862

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.