Impact of increasing the availability of healthier vs. less-healthy food on food selection: a randomised laboratory experiment.

Absolute-and-relative availability Food appeal Food selection Health inequalities Response inhibition Socioeconomic position

Journal

BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 02 2021
Historique:
received: 21 02 2020
accepted: 10 12 2020
entrez: 1 2 2021
pubmed: 2 2 2021
medline: 15 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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. 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. ISRCTN: ISRCTN34626166 ; 11/06/2018; Retrospectively registered.

Sections du résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33517908
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-10046-3
pii: 10.1186/s12889-020-10046-3
pmc: PMC7849186
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

132

Subventions

Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 106679/Z/14/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : PR-UN-0409-10109

Références

Soc Sci Med. 2013 Sep;92:22-6
pubmed: 23849275
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jun 13;16:504
pubmed: 27297225
Appetite. 2020 Feb 1;145:104484
pubmed: 31626833
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Mar;37(3):279-99
pubmed: 23261403
Appetite. 2014 Sep;80:123-30
pubmed: 24845785
Psychol Health. 2011 Jun;26(6):635-50
pubmed: 21360414
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Nov;19(11):2175-82
pubmed: 21475139
Psychosom Med. 2014 Sep;76(7):503-11
pubmed: 25215552
Health Psychol. 2015 Jul;34(7):750-755
pubmed: 25420063
BMC Public Health. 2018 Nov 29;18(1):1296
pubmed: 30486801
Appetite. 2010 Apr;54(2):422-5
pubmed: 20100530
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1345-1422
pubmed: 28919119
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1151-1210
pubmed: 28919116
Appetite. 2010 Dec;55(3):420-5
pubmed: 20678532
Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:135-68
pubmed: 23020641
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Feb 15;108(7):2693-8
pubmed: 21262822
Int J Epidemiol. 2001 Apr;30(2):334-40
pubmed: 11369739
BMC Public Health. 2020 Jun 29;20(1):986
pubmed: 32594907
Dev Psychol. 2013 Feb;49(2):292-304
pubmed: 22563675
Health Psychol. 2011 Mar;30(2):195-203
pubmed: 21401253
Health Psychol. 2010 Jul;29(4):389-93
pubmed: 20658826
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010 May;7(5):2290-308
pubmed: 20623025
Health Psychol. 2012 Mar;31(2):235-41
pubmed: 21895367
Science. 2012 Sep 21;337(6101):1492-5
pubmed: 22997327
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 04;9:CD012573
pubmed: 31482606
Appetite. 2017 May 1;112:52-58
pubmed: 28082195
Appetite. 2018 Feb 1;121:337-347
pubmed: 29183701
Br J Nutr. 2015 Jan 14;113(1):181-9
pubmed: 25399952
Obes Rev. 2010 Jun;11(6):413-29
pubmed: 19889178

Auteurs

Rachel Pechey (R)

Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. rachel.pechey@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. rachel.pechey@phc.ox.ac.uk.

Olivia Sexton (O)

Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Saphsa Codling (S)

Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Theresa M Marteau (TM)

Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH