Norbert L W Wilson1, David R Just2, Jeffery Swigert3, Brian Wansink4. 1. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. 2. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. 3. Policy Analysis and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. 4. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.
Abstract
Background: Food pantries and food banks are interested in cost-effective methods to encourage the selection of targeted foods without restricting choices. Thus, this study evaluates the effectiveness of nudges toward targeted foods. Methods: In October/November 2014, we manipulated the display of a targeted product in a New York State food pantry. We evaluated the binary choice of the targeted good when we placed it in the front or the back of the category line (placement order) and when we presented the product in its original box or unboxed (packaging). Results: The average uptake proportion for the back treatment was 0.231, 95% CI = 0.179, 0.29, n = 205, and for the front treatment, the proportion was 0.337, 95% CI = 0.272, 0.406, n = 238 with an odds ratio of 1.688, 95% CI = 1.088, 2.523. The average uptake for the unboxed treatment was 0.224, 95% CI = 0.174, 0.280, n = 255, and for the boxed intervention, the proportion was 0.356, 95% CI = 0.288, 0.429, n = 188 with an odds ratio of 1.923, 95% CI = 1.237, 2.991. Conclusions: Nudges increased uptake of the targeted food. The findings also hold when we control for a potential confounder. Low cost and unobtrusive nudges can be effective tools for food pantry organizers to encourage the selection of targeted foods. Trial Registration Number: NCT02403882.
RCT Entities:
Background: Food pantries and food banks are interested in cost-effective methods to encourage the selection of targeted foods without restricting choices. Thus, this study evaluates the effectiveness of nudges toward targeted foods. Methods: In October/November 2014, we manipulated the display of a targeted product in a New York State food pantry. We evaluated the binary choice of the targeted good when we placed it in the front or the back of the category line (placement order) and when we presented the product in its original box or unboxed (packaging). Results: The average uptake proportion for the back treatment was 0.231, 95% CI = 0.179, 0.29, n = 205, and for the front treatment, the proportion was 0.337, 95% CI = 0.272, 0.406, n = 238 with an odds ratio of 1.688, 95% CI = 1.088, 2.523. The average uptake for the unboxed treatment was 0.224, 95% CI = 0.174, 0.280, n = 255, and for the boxed intervention, the proportion was 0.356, 95% CI = 0.288, 0.429, n = 188 with an odds ratio of 1.923, 95% CI = 1.237, 2.991. Conclusions: Nudges increased uptake of the targeted food. The findings also hold when we control for a potential confounder. Low cost and unobtrusive nudges can be effective tools for food pantry organizers to encourage the selection of targeted foods. Trial Registration Number: NCT02403882.
Authors: Alexander D Bryan; Zoë A Ginsburg; Ellen B Rubinstein; Hilary J Frankel; Andrew R Maroko; Clyde B Schechter; Kristen Cooksey Stowers; Sean C Lucan Journal: J Community Health Date: 2019-04
Authors: Christopher R Long; Marie-Rachelle Narcisse; Brett Rowland; Bonnie Faitak; Caitlin E Caspi; Joel Gittelsohn; Pearl A McElfish Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2019-10-18 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Gareth J Hollands; Patrice Carter; Sumayya Anwer; Sarah E King; Susan A Jebb; David Ogilvie; Ian Shemilt; Julian P T Higgins; Theresa M Marteau Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-09-04
Authors: Gareth J Hollands; Patrice Carter; Sumayya Anwer; Sarah E King; Susan A Jebb; David Ogilvie; Ian Shemilt; Julian P T Higgins; Theresa M Marteau Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-08-27