Impact of bottle size on in-home consumption of wine: feasibility and acceptability randomised cross-over study.
Alcohol
Bottle size
Consumption
Portion size
Wine
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
22
07
2019
accepted:
04
02
2020
entrez:
15
2
2020
pubmed:
15
2
2020
medline:
15
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reducing alcohol consumption across populations would prevent many non-communicable diseases. Large packages increase food and non-alcoholic drink consumption and large glasses increase wine consumption. Smaller bottles may reduce alcohol consumption but their impact is uncertain. This study aims to (i) explore the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a large-scale randomised study to assess the impact of bottle size on in-home wine consumption and (ii) estimate the effect size and variance of the intervention on consumption to inform the design of future studies. Cross-over randomised study in which 16 households in Cambridge, England, consuming at least two 750-ml bottles of wine each week, received a pre-set volume of wine biweekly for 4 weeks, in 750-ml and 375-ml bottles, in random order. Consumption was assessed by recording the number of empty and partially full bottles at the end of each biweekly period. At the end of the study, household representatives were interviewed about their experiences of participating in the study. The study procedures proved feasible. Comparable to similar trials, 14% of identified eligible households (18/125) consented to participate in the study. Attrition between consent and study completion was 11% (2/18) and 0% between study periods and 13% of households (2/16) correctly identified the study aim. The study procedures were considered acceptable. After adjusting for guest and out-of-home consumption, the difference in consumption between the 750-ml (3385.2 ml; SD = 1698.5) and 375-ml bottles (3376.7 ml; SD = 1719.0) was 8.4 ml (SD = 1235.4; 95%CI - 596.9, 613.8). Results suggest a possible order effect, with households receiving the 375-ml bottles first consuming more wine out of the 750-ml bottles and vice versa. This might also reflect an increase in consumption with study duration. Households receiving the 375-ml bottles first (6315.9 ml; SD = 3293.5) also drank less wine overall than those receiving the 750-ml bottles first (7335.4 ml; SD = 3735.4). The findings support the feasibility and acceptability of running a large-scale randomised study to assess the impact of bottle size on in-home wine consumption. Due to the heterogeneous patterning of results, a future study will be powered using the variance observed in the current study to detect a meaningful reduction of 250 ml of wine when consumed from smaller compared with larger bottles. Open Science Framework (OSF): rmk43; May 23, 2017.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reducing alcohol consumption across populations would prevent many non-communicable diseases. Large packages increase food and non-alcoholic drink consumption and large glasses increase wine consumption. Smaller bottles may reduce alcohol consumption but their impact is uncertain. This study aims to (i) explore the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a large-scale randomised study to assess the impact of bottle size on in-home wine consumption and (ii) estimate the effect size and variance of the intervention on consumption to inform the design of future studies.
METHODS
METHODS
Cross-over randomised study in which 16 households in Cambridge, England, consuming at least two 750-ml bottles of wine each week, received a pre-set volume of wine biweekly for 4 weeks, in 750-ml and 375-ml bottles, in random order. Consumption was assessed by recording the number of empty and partially full bottles at the end of each biweekly period. At the end of the study, household representatives were interviewed about their experiences of participating in the study.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study procedures proved feasible. Comparable to similar trials, 14% of identified eligible households (18/125) consented to participate in the study. Attrition between consent and study completion was 11% (2/18) and 0% between study periods and 13% of households (2/16) correctly identified the study aim. The study procedures were considered acceptable. After adjusting for guest and out-of-home consumption, the difference in consumption between the 750-ml (3385.2 ml; SD = 1698.5) and 375-ml bottles (3376.7 ml; SD = 1719.0) was 8.4 ml (SD = 1235.4; 95%CI - 596.9, 613.8). Results suggest a possible order effect, with households receiving the 375-ml bottles first consuming more wine out of the 750-ml bottles and vice versa. This might also reflect an increase in consumption with study duration. Households receiving the 375-ml bottles first (6315.9 ml; SD = 3293.5) also drank less wine overall than those receiving the 750-ml bottles first (7335.4 ml; SD = 3735.4).
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The findings support the feasibility and acceptability of running a large-scale randomised study to assess the impact of bottle size on in-home wine consumption. Due to the heterogeneous patterning of results, a future study will be powered using the variance observed in the current study to detect a meaningful reduction of 250 ml of wine when consumed from smaller compared with larger bottles.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Open Science Framework (OSF): rmk43; May 23, 2017.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32055406
doi: 10.1186/s40814-020-00566-5
pii: 566
pmc: PMC7011263
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
19Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Appetite. 2018 Jan 1;120:171-180
pubmed: 28864259
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1345-1422
pubmed: 28919119
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jan 06;10:1
pubmed: 20053272
BMC Public Health. 2017 Apr 7;17(1):304
pubmed: 28388890
J Am Diet Assoc. 2007 Jul;107(7):1103-6
pubmed: 17604738
Addiction. 2020 Jan 31;:
pubmed: 32003493
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Mar;68(3):347-54
pubmed: 25487343
Appetite. 2016 Mar 1;98:28-34
pubmed: 26702602
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Aug 27;8:CD012573
pubmed: 31452193
Alcohol Res. 2013;35(2):174-83
pubmed: 24881325
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009 Jul;28(4):360-5
pubmed: 19594789
BMJ. 2015 Dec 02;351:h5863
pubmed: 26630968
BMC Res Notes. 2019 Jul 17;12(1):426
pubmed: 31315655
J Am Diet Assoc. 1989 Oct;89(10):1473-7
pubmed: 2794306
BMC Res Notes. 2017 Aug 1;10(1):287
pubmed: 28760155
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015 Nov 20;1:41
pubmed: 27965819
Psychol Sci. 2006 Jun;17(6):521-5
pubmed: 16771803
Prev Med. 2013 Oct;57(4):278-96
pubmed: 23811528
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jun;79(6):962-8
pubmed: 15159224
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 14;(9):CD011045
pubmed: 26368271
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 20;7(3):e015276
pubmed: 28320800
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jun 07;16:390
pubmed: 27268112
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015;55(7):988-1004
pubmed: 24915353