Trial reportPublic health nutrition2026
Advocacy to improve food security in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander communities in Australia: measuring the impact of message frames.
Trial report in Public health nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine whether different message frames increase public support for a community-identified policy solution to improve food security in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia.
designAn online experimental study in which participants were randomly assigned to one of three message frames: human rights, fairness or community-identified solution or a control condition. Logistic regression models were used to assess associations between message frames and support for an electricity subsidy policy. Interaction analyses explored whether participant characteristics moderated these effects.
settingAustralia.
participantsA nationally representative sample of 1555 Australian adults recruited through an online panel.
resultsMessage framing had limited overall impact on policy support. The human rights frame generated the highest support for the proposed subsidy, while the fairness frame generated the lowest; however, these differences were modest. We found that regardless of frame used, Greens supporters, those with postgraduate degrees or those who watched the news more frequently, tended to have higher levels of agreement with the policy solution.
conclusionAlthough message framing is widely used in advocacy to increase policy support, its impact in this context appears constrained. These findings underscore the complexity of shifting public attitudes toward policies benefiting structurally disadvantaged communities and suggest that more targeted, audience-specific framing may be necessary. Further research should explore why certain frames underperform among particular groups and examine how agreement and emotional engagement jointly shape support for policy change.
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.