Trial reportAppetite2024
Changing the availability and positioning of more vs. less environmentally sustainable products: A randomised controlled trial in an online experimental supermarket.
Trial report in Appetite, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of restricting price promotions on foods high in fat, sugar and salt on purchasing behaviours: a randomised controlled trial in a simulated online supermarket in the UK.Public health nutrition · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Effects of brand-matched alcoholic and alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks adverts on drink selections: A United Kingdom-based randomised controlled trial in an experimental online supermarket.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Trial
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.
Funding
Abstract
Food purchasing behaviours are shaped by the choices available to shoppers and the way they are offered for sale. This study tested whether prominent positioning of more sustainable food items online and increasing their relative availability might reduce the environmental impact of foods selected in a 2x2 (availability x position) factorial randomised controlled trial. Participants (n = 1179) selected items in a shopping task in an experimental online supermarket. The availability intervention added lower-impact products to the regular range. The positioning intervention biased product order to give prominence to lower-impact products. The primary outcome was the environmental impact score (ranging from 1 "least impact" to 5 "most impact", of each item in shopping baskets) analysed using Welch's ANOVA. Secondary outcomes included interactions (analysed via linear regression) by gender, age group, education, income and meat consumption and we assessed intervention acceptability (using different frames) in a post-experiment questionnaire. Compared to control (mean = 21.6), mean eco quintile score was significantly reduced when availability & order was altered (-2.30; 95%CI: 3.04; -1.56) and when order only was changed (-1.67; 95%CI: 2.42; -0.92). No significant difference between availability only (-0.02; 95%CI: 0.73; 0.69) and control was found. There were no significant interactions between interventions or by demographic characteristics. Both interventions were acceptable under certain frames (positioning emphasising lower-impact products: 70.3% support; increasing lower-impact items: 74.3% support). Prominent positioning of more sustainable products may be an effective strategy to encourage more sustainable food purchasing. Increasing availability of more sustainable products alone did not significantly alter the environment impact of products selected.
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.