ArticleBMC public health2022
Customer support for nudge strategies to promote fruit and vegetable intake in a university food service.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Campus food service users' support for nudge strategies for fruit and vegetable-rich items: findings from a large Canadian national sample.Journal of nutritional science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiverse nudges, also known as choice architectural techniques, have been found to increase fruit and vegetable (FV) selection in both lab and field studies. Such strategies are unlikely to be adopted in mass eating settings without clear evidence of customer support; confirmation in specific contexts is needed. Inspired by the Taxonomy of Choice Architecture, we assessed support for eight types of nudging to increase the choice of FV-rich foods in a university food service. We also explored whether and to what extent nudge support was associated with perceived effectiveness and intrusiveness.
methodsAn online survey was conducted with students who used on-campus cafeterias. Multiple recruitment methods were used. Participants were given 20 specific scenarios for increasing FV selection and asked about their personal support for each nudge, as well as perceived intrusiveness and effectiveness. General beliefs about healthy eating and nudging were also measured. Results were assessed by repeated measures ANOVA for the 8 nudge types.
resultsAll nudge scenarios achieved overall favourable ratings, with significant differences among different types of nudging by the 298 respondents. Changing range of options (type B3) and changing option-related consequences (type B4) received the highest support, followed by changing option-related effort (type B2) and making information visible (type A2). Translating information (type A1), changing defaults (type B1) and providing reminders or facilitating commitment (type C) were less popular types of nudging. Providing social reference points (type A3) was least supported. Support for nudge types was positively associated with the belief that food services have a role in promoting healthy eating, perceived importance of FV intake, trustworthiness of the choice architect and female gender. Lastly, support for all types of nudges was positively predicted by perceived effectiveness of each nudge and negatively predicted by perceived intrusiveness above and beyond the contribution of general beliefs about healthy eating and nudging.
conclusionsFindings from the current study indicate significant differences in support for nudge techniques intended to increase FV selection among university cafeteria users. These findings offer practical implications for food service operators as well as public health researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.