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
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
132Subventions
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