Explaining the effect on food selection of altering availability: two experimental studies on the role of relative preferences.
Availability
Food
Mechanism
Preferences
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 04 2022
30 04 2022
Historique:
received:
18
08
2021
accepted:
23
03
2022
entrez:
3
5
2022
pubmed:
4
5
2022
medline:
6
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Increasing the availability of healthier or plant-based foods increases their selection. The current studies aimed to examine the extent to which relative preferences account for food selections following availability interventions. In particular, (a) whether increasing the availability of lower-energy options increases the likelihood that individuals' highest-ranked option is lower-energy, and (b) the extent to which selections reflect individuals' highest-ranked option from the available range. UK adults (Study 1: n = 1976; Study 2: n = 1078) took part in within-subjects online studies. In both studies, the order of preference between food options was established by participants choosing the option that they would prefer "to eat right now" from every possible pairing within a pool of eight options. Then, participants were shown either predominantly higher-energy options (three higher- and one lower-energy) or predominantly lower-energy options (vice versa), presented in a random order. When predominantly lower-energy options were presented, the odds of the highest-ranked option being a lower-energy option increased ten-fold (Study 1: odds ratio: 10.1; 95%CI: 8.9,11.4; Study 2: odds ratio: 10.4; 95%CI: 7.4,14.7), compared to when predominantly higher-energy options were available. In both studies, around 90% of selections reflected the highest-ranked option in the range offered in the studied availability conditions (range 88-92%). These studies suggest that increased availability of lower-energy options increases the likelihood of an individual's highest-ranked option being lower-energy, and that the highest-ranked option has the greatest likelihood of selection. As such, preferences may be a key contributor to the effects of altering availability on food selections. ISRCTN ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN27598623 ; 3/12/19 [Study 1]; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN61010183 ; 20/4/20 [Study 2]).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Increasing the availability of healthier or plant-based foods increases their selection. The current studies aimed to examine the extent to which relative preferences account for food selections following availability interventions. In particular, (a) whether increasing the availability of lower-energy options increases the likelihood that individuals' highest-ranked option is lower-energy, and (b) the extent to which selections reflect individuals' highest-ranked option from the available range.
METHODS
UK adults (Study 1: n = 1976; Study 2: n = 1078) took part in within-subjects online studies. In both studies, the order of preference between food options was established by participants choosing the option that they would prefer "to eat right now" from every possible pairing within a pool of eight options. Then, participants were shown either predominantly higher-energy options (three higher- and one lower-energy) or predominantly lower-energy options (vice versa), presented in a random order.
RESULTS
When predominantly lower-energy options were presented, the odds of the highest-ranked option being a lower-energy option increased ten-fold (Study 1: odds ratio: 10.1; 95%CI: 8.9,11.4; Study 2: odds ratio: 10.4; 95%CI: 7.4,14.7), compared to when predominantly higher-energy options were available. In both studies, around 90% of selections reflected the highest-ranked option in the range offered in the studied availability conditions (range 88-92%).
CONCLUSIONS
These studies suggest that increased availability of lower-energy options increases the likelihood of an individual's highest-ranked option being lower-energy, and that the highest-ranked option has the greatest likelihood of selection. As such, preferences may be a key contributor to the effects of altering availability on food selections.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ISRCTN ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN27598623 ; 3/12/19 [Study 1]; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN61010183 ; 20/4/20 [Study 2]).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35501746
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13067-2
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13067-2
pmc: PMC9063226
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
868Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 206853/Z/17/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Oct 15;116(42):20923-20929
pubmed: 31570584
BMC Public Health. 2021 Feb 1;21(1):132
pubmed: 33517908
Appetite. 2019 Feb 1;133:286-296
pubmed: 30468803
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 May 9;19(1):97
pubmed: 31072299
BMC Public Health. 2020 Jun 29;20(1):986
pubmed: 32594907
PLoS Med. 2021 Sep 14;18(9):e1003743
pubmed: 34520468
Annu Rev Nutr. 1997;17:237-53
pubmed: 9240927
BMC Public Health. 2018 Nov 29;18(1):1296
pubmed: 30486801
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 04;9:CD012573
pubmed: 31482606
Br J Nutr. 2015 Jan 14;113(1):181-9
pubmed: 25399952
Appetite. 1982 Sep;3(3):283-90
pubmed: 7159080
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Sep;92:22-6
pubmed: 23849275
BMC Public Health. 2012 Dec 12;12:1072
pubmed: 23231863
BMJ. 2022 Apr 13;377:e069848
pubmed: 35418445
Appetite. 2021 Sep 1;164:105245
pubmed: 33836216
Appetite. 2017 Oct 1;117:342-350
pubmed: 28712977
Lancet. 2018 Nov 3;392(10158):1647-1661
pubmed: 30497795
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 6;377(1):13-27
pubmed: 28604169
Public Health Nutr. 1999 Dec;2(4):513-9
pubmed: 10656470
Annu Rev Nutr. 1999;19:41-62
pubmed: 10448516
Appetite. 2015 Jan;84:271-9
pubmed: 25451584
Appetite. 1999 Apr;32(2):207-18
pubmed: 10097026
Physiol Behav. 2014 Apr 22;129:36-42
pubmed: 24534166