Kylie Ball1, Sarah A McNaughton1, Ha N D Le1, Lisa Gold1, Cliona Ni Mhurchu1, Gavin Abbott1, Christina Pollard1, David Crawford1. 1. From the Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research (KB, SAM, GA, and DC) and Deakin Health Economics (HNDL and LG), Deakin University, Burwood, Australia; the National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand (CNM); and the School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia (CP).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fiscal strategies are increasingly considered upstream nutrition promotion measures. However, few trials have investigated the effectiveness or cost effectiveness of pricing manipulations on diet in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effects on fruit, vegetable, and beverage purchasing and consumption of a 20% price-reduction intervention, a tailored skills-based behavior-change intervention, and a combined intervention compared with a control condition. DESIGN: The Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life trial was a randomized controlled trial conducted over 3 mo [baseline (time 1) to postintervention (time 2) with a 6-mo follow-up (time 3)]. Female primary household shoppers in Melbourne, Australia, were randomly assigned to a 1) skill-building (n = 160), 2) price-reduction (n = 161), 3) combined skill-building and price-reduction (n = 160), or 4) control (n = 161) group. Supermarket transaction data and surveys were used to measure the following study outcomes: fruit, vegetable, and beverage purchases and self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption at each time point. RESULTS: At 3 mo (time 2), price reduction-alone participants purchased more total vegetables and frozen vegetables than did controls. Price reduction-alone and price reduction-plus-skill-building participants purchased more fruit than did controls. Relative to controls, in the price-reduction group, total vegetable consumption increased by 233 g/wk (3.1 servings or 15% more than at baseline), and fruit purchases increased by 364 g/wk (2.4 servings; 35% more than at baseline). Increases were not maintained 6 mo postintervention (time 3). Price reduction-alone participants showed a tendency for a slight increase in fruit consumption at time 2 (P = 0.09) that was maintained at time 3 (P = 0.014). No intervention improved purchases of bottled water or low-calorie beverages. CONCLUSIONS: A 20% price reduction in fruit and vegetables resulted in increased purchasing per household of 35% for fruit and 15% for vegetables over the price-reduction period. These findings show that price modifications can directly increase produce purchases. The Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life trial was registered at Current Controlled Trials Registration as ISRCTN39432901.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Fiscal strategies are increasingly considered upstream nutrition promotion measures. However, few trials have investigated the effectiveness or cost effectiveness of pricing manipulations on diet in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effects on fruit, vegetable, and beverage purchasing and consumption of a 20% price-reduction intervention, a tailored skills-based behavior-change intervention, and a combined intervention compared with a control condition. DESIGN: The Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life trial was a randomized controlled trial conducted over 3 mo [baseline (time 1) to postintervention (time 2) with a 6-mo follow-up (time 3)]. Female primary household shoppers in Melbourne, Australia, were randomly assigned to a 1) skill-building (n = 160), 2) price-reduction (n = 161), 3) combined skill-building and price-reduction (n = 160), or 4) control (n = 161) group. Supermarket transaction data and surveys were used to measure the following study outcomes: fruit, vegetable, and beverage purchases and self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption at each time point. RESULTS: At 3 mo (time 2), price reduction-alone participants purchased more total vegetables and frozen vegetables than did controls. Price reduction-alone and price reduction-plus-skill-building participants purchased more fruit than did controls. Relative to controls, in the price-reduction group, total vegetable consumption increased by 233 g/wk (3.1 servings or 15% more than at baseline), and fruit purchases increased by 364 g/wk (2.4 servings; 35% more than at baseline). Increases were not maintained 6 mo postintervention (time 3). Price reduction-alone participants showed a tendency for a slight increase in fruit consumption at time 2 (P = 0.09) that was maintained at time 3 (P = 0.014). No intervention improved purchases of bottled water or low-calorie beverages. CONCLUSIONS: A 20% price reduction in fruit and vegetables resulted in increased purchasing per household of 35% for fruit and 15% for vegetables over the price-reduction period. These findings show that price modifications can directly increase produce purchases. The Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life trial was registered at Current Controlled Trials Registration as ISRCTN39432901.
Authors: Peter von Philipsborn; Jan M Stratil; Jacob Burns; Laura K Busert; Lisa M Pfadenhauer; Stephanie Polus; Christina Holzapfel; Hans Hauner; Eva A Rehfuess Journal: Obes Facts Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 3.942
Authors: Matthew K Taylor; Debra K Sullivan; Edward F Ellerbeck; Byron J Gajewski; Heather D Gibbs Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Xuyang Tang; Mary Ann Honors; Angela R Fertig; Simone A French; Jean Abraham; Lisa Harnack Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Christina Vogel; Sarah Crozier; Daniel Penn-Newman; Kylie Ball; Graham Moon; Joanne Lord; Cyrus Cooper; Janis Baird Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Peter von Philipsborn; Jan M Stratil; Jacob Burns; Laura K Busert; Lisa M Pfadenhauer; Stephanie Polus; Christina Holzapfel; Hans Hauner; Eva Rehfuess Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-06-12
Authors: Christina Vogel; Georgia Ntani; Hazel Inskip; Mary Barker; Steven Cummins; Cyrus Cooper; Graham Moon; Janis Baird Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 5.043