ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluating source credibility effects in health labelling using vending machines in a hospital setting.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A Scoping Review of Choice Architecture to Promote Healthy Nutrition in Health and Care Settings.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesProviding advice to consumers in the form of labelling may mitigate the increased availability and low cost of foods that contribute to the obesity problem. Our objective was to test whether making the source of the health advice on the label more credible makes labelling more effective. METHODS AND MEASURES: Vending machines in different locations were stocked with healthy and unhealthy products in a hospital. Healthy products were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (i) a control condition in which no labelling was present (ii) a low source credibility label, "Lighter choices", and (iii) a high source credibility label that included the UK National Health Service (NHS) logo and name, "NHS lighter choices". Unhealthy products received no labelling. The outcome measure was sales volume.
resultsThere were no main effects of labelling. However, there were significant interactions between labelling, vending machine location and payment type. For one location and payment type, sales of products increased in the high credibility label condition compared to control, particularly for unhealthy products, contrary to expectations.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that high source credibility health labels (NHS endorsement) on food either have little effect, or worse, can "backfire" and lead to effects opposite to those intended. The primary limitations are the limited range of source credibility labels and the scale of the study.
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.