Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38303069›Full record

Trial reportBMC medicine2024

Real-world nudging, pricing, and mobile physical activity coaching was insufficient to improve lifestyle behaviours and cardiometabolic health: the Supreme Nudge parallel cluster-randomised controlled supermarket trial.

Josine M Stuber, Joreintje D Mackenbach, Gert-Jan de Bruijn, Marleen Gillebaart, Jody C Hoenink, Cédric N H Middel, Denise T D de Ridder, Yvonne T van der Schouw, Edith G Smit, Elizabeth Velema and 5 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Josine M StuberEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. j.stuber@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7825-018X
Joreintje D MackenbachEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2783-721X
Gert-Jan de BruijnDepartment of Communication Science, University of Antwerp, St-Jacobstraat 2, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9759-3938
Marleen GillebaartDepartment of Social, Health and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6634-5680
Jody C HoeninkCentre for Diet and Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0303-4540
Cédric N H MiddelEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7932-2042
Denise T D de RidderDepartment of Social, Health and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8237-9506
Yvonne T van der SchouwJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 100, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4605-435X
Edith G SmitAmsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6913-4897
Elizabeth VelemaNetherlands Nutrition Centre (Voedingscentrum), Bezuidenhoutseweg 105, The Hague, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0164-8306
Anne L VosAmsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2218-1119
Wilma E WaterlanderAmsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0956-178X
Jeroen LakerveldEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8551-6748
Joline W J BeulensEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4181-0937
SUPREME NUDGE consortium

Funding

ZonMw 531003001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContext-specific interventions may contribute to sustained behaviour change and improved health outcomes. We evaluated the real-world effects of supermarket nudging and pricing strategies and mobile physical activity coaching on diet quality, food-purchasing behaviour, walking behaviour, and cardiometabolic risk markers.

methodsThis parallel cluster-randomised controlled trial included supermarkets in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods across the Netherlands with regular shoppers aged 30-80 years. Supermarkets were randomised to receive co-created nudging and pricing strategies promoting healthier purchasing (N = 6) or not (N = 6). Nudges targeted 9% of supermarket products and pricing strategies 3%. Subsequently, participants were individually randomised to a control (step counter app) or intervention arm (step counter and mobile coaching app) to promote walking. The primary outcome was the average change in diet quality (low (0) to high (150)) over all follow-up time points measured with a validated 40-item food frequency questionnaire at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included healthier food purchasing (loyalty card-derived), daily step count (step counter app), cardiometabolic risk markers (lipid profile and HbA1c via finger prick, and waist circumference via measuring tape), and supermarket customer satisfaction (questionnaire-based: very unsatisfied (1) to very satisfied (7)), evaluated using linear mixed-models. Healthy supermarket sales (an exploratory outcome) were analysed via controlled interrupted time series analyses.

resultsOf 361 participants (162 intervention, 199 control), 73% were female, the average age was 58 (SD 11) years, and 42% were highly educated. Compared to the control arm, the intervention arm showed no statistically significant average changes over time in diet quality (β - 1.1 (95% CI - 3.8 to 1.7)), percentage healthy purchasing (β 0.7 ( - 2.7 to 4.0)), step count (β - 124.0 (- 723.1 to 475.1), or any of the cardiometabolic risk markers. Participants in the intervention arm scored 0.3 points (0.1 to 0.5) higher on customer satisfaction on average over time. Supermarket-level sales were unaffected (β - 0.0 (- 0.0 to 0.0)).

conclusionsCo-created nudging and pricing strategies that predominantly targeted healthy products via nudges were unable to increase healthier food purchases and intake nor improve cardiometabolic health. The mobile coaching intervention did not affect step count. Governmental policy measures are needed to ensure more impactful supermarket modifications that promote healthier purchases.

trial registrationDutch Trial Register ID NL7064, 30 May 2018, https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/20990.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesMentoringExerciseFemaleFood MarketsHumansLife StyleMaleMiddle AgedCardiovascular diseaseChoice architectureFood environmentGrocery storeObesityPrevention

Identifiers

PMID38303069
PMCPMC10835818

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.