Rachel Pechey1,2, Olivia Sexton3, Saphsa Codling3, Theresa M Marteau3. 1. Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. rachel.pechey@phc.ox.ac.uk. 2. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. rachel.pechey@phc.ox.ac.uk. 3. Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Environmental cues shape behaviour, but few studies compare the impact of targeting healthier vs. less-healthy cues. One online study suggested greater impact on selection from increasing the number of less-healthy (vs. healthier) snacks. The current study aimed to: (1) extend the previous study by using physically-present snacks for immediate consumption; (2) explore responsiveness by socio-economic position; (3) investigate possible mediators (response inhibition, food appeal) of any socio-economic differences in selection. METHODS:In a between-subjects laboratory experiment UK adults (n = 417) were randomised according to their ID number (without blinding) to one of three ranges of options: Two healthier, two less-healthy ["Equal"] (n = 136); Six healthier, two less-healthy ["Increased Healthier"] (n = 143); Two healthier, six less-healthy ["Increased Less-Healthy"] (n = 138). Participants completed measures of response inhibition and food appeal, and selected a snack for immediate consumption from their allocated range. The primary outcome was selection of a healthier (over less-healthy) snack. RESULTS: The odds of selecting a less-healthy snack were 2.9 times higher (95%CIs:1.7,5.1) in the Increased Less-Healthy condition compared to the Equal condition. The odds of selecting a healthier snack were 2.5 times higher (95%CIs:1.5,4.1) in the Increased Healthier (vs. Equal) condition. There was no significant difference in the size of these effects (- 0.2; 95%CIs:-1.1,0.7). Findings were inconclusive with regard to interactions by education, but the direction of effects was consistent with potentially larger impact of the Increased Healthier condition on selection for higher-educated participants, and potentially larger impact of the Increased Less-Healthy condition for less-educated participants. CONCLUSIONS: A greater impact from increasing the number of less-healthy (over healthier) foods was not replicated when selecting snacks for immediate consumption: both increased selections of the targeted foods with no evidence of a difference in effectiveness. The observed pattern of results suggested possible differential impact by education, albeit not statistically significant. If replicated in larger studies, this could suggest that removing less-healthy options has the potential to reduce health inequalities due to unhealthier diets. Conversely, adding healthier options could have the potential to increase these inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN34626166 ; 11/06/2018; Retrospectively registered.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Environmental cues shape behaviour, but few studies compare the impact of targeting healthier vs. less-healthy cues. One online study suggested greater impact on selection from increasing the number of less-healthy (vs. healthier) snacks. The current study aimed to: (1) extend the previous study by using physically-present snacks for immediate consumption; (2) explore responsiveness by socio-economic position; (3) investigate possible mediators (response inhibition, food appeal) of any socio-economic differences in selection. METHODS: In a between-subjects laboratory experiment UK adults (n = 417) were randomised according to their ID number (without blinding) to one of three ranges of options: Two healthier, two less-healthy ["Equal"] (n = 136); Six healthier, two less-healthy ["Increased Healthier"] (n = 143); Two healthier, six less-healthy ["Increased Less-Healthy"] (n = 138). Participants completed measures of response inhibition and food appeal, and selected a snack for immediate consumption from their allocated range. The primary outcome was selection of a healthier (over less-healthy) snack. RESULTS: The odds of selecting a less-healthy snack were 2.9 times higher (95%CIs:1.7,5.1) in the Increased Less-Healthy condition compared to the Equal condition. The odds of selecting a healthier snack were 2.5 times higher (95%CIs:1.5,4.1) in the Increased Healthier (vs. Equal) condition. There was no significant difference in the size of these effects (- 0.2; 95%CIs:-1.1,0.7). Findings were inconclusive with regard to interactions by education, but the direction of effects was consistent with potentially larger impact of the Increased Healthier condition on selection for higher-educated participants, and potentially larger impact of the Increased Less-Healthy condition for less-educated participants. CONCLUSIONS: A greater impact from increasing the number of less-healthy (over healthier) foods was not replicated when selecting snacks for immediate consumption: both increased selections of the targeted foods with no evidence of a difference in effectiveness. The observed pattern of results suggested possible differential impact by education, albeit not statistically significant. If replicated in larger studies, this could suggest that removing less-healthy options has the potential to reduce health inequalities due to unhealthier diets. Conversely, adding healthier options could have the potential to increase these inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN34626166 ; 11/06/2018; Retrospectively registered.
Entities:
Keywords:
Absolute-and-relative availability; Food appeal; Food selection; Health inequalities; Response inhibition; Socioeconomic position
Authors: Rachel Pechey; Susan A Jebb; Michael P Kelly; Eva Almiron-Roig; Susana Conde; Ryota Nakamura; Ian Shemilt; Marc Suhrcke; Theresa M Marteau Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Jennifer A Hunter; Gareth J Hollands; Dominique-Laurent Couturier; Theresa M Marteau Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rachel Pechey; Gareth J Hollands; James P Reynolds; Susan A Jebb; Theresa M Marteau Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 8.915
Authors: Beatriz Pereira; Pedro Rosário; José Carlos Núñez; Daniela Rosendo; Cristina Roces; Paula Magalhães Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 3.390