Pairing images of unhealthy and healthy foods with images of negative and positive health consequences: Impact on attitudes and food choice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of presenting images of foods paired with images of positive and negative health consequences of their consumption on food choice and attitudes. METHOD: Participants (N = 711) were randomly allocated in a 2 × 3 factorial design (Food Type × Affective Valence) to 1 of 6 conditioning procedures that paired images of either energy-dense snack foods or fruit, with (a) images of negative health outcomes, (b) images of positive health outcomes, or (c) a no image control. The primary outcome was food choice assessed postintervention with a behavioral choice task. Secondary outcomes were implicit attitudes (assessed pre- and postintervention) and explicit attitudes (assessed postintervention). RESULTS: Presenting images of negative health outcomes led to more healthy food choices relative to control and positive image conditions, irrespective of whether they were paired with images of energy-dense snack foods or fruit. This relationship was partially mediated by changes in implicit and explicit attitudes. Images of positive health outcomes did not alter food choices. CONCLUSIONS: This study replicates and extends previous research showing that presenting images of negative health consequences increases healthy food choices. Because effects were elicited by manipulating affective valence irrespective of paired food type, these results appear more consistent with an explanation based on priming than on evaluative conditioning. (PsycINFO Database RecordThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the American Psychological Association via http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea000029

Are meat options preferred to comparable vegetarian options? An experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: Reducing meat consumption would have substantial benefits both in terms of health and environmental impact, but meat options may be more attractive to customers than meat-free options. This study tested this by presenting UK adults (n = 540) with a series of pictures showing two meal options and asking them to select which they would prefer to eat right now. They completed this task for every possible pair from a pool of six comparator meat-based options and six target options (66 pairs). Participants all saw identical comparator options, and were randomised to see the same pictures of target options but with descriptions that suggested they were either meat-based or vegetarian. RESULTS: Selections were used to rank the options for each individual from 1 (most-selected) to 12 (least-selected). Vegetarian target options were ranked worse [by 1.23 places (95% CI: 1.02, 1.44)] than meat target options. Higher self-reported consumption of meat predicted worse mean rankings of target options when these were vegetarian, but not when target options were meat-based. This suggests meat options are preferred to equivalent vegetarian options and may be more likely to be selected. This has implications for interventions aiming to reduce meat consumption to make diets healthier and more sustainable

Open science prevents mindless science.

Lessons from a case of academic misconduc

Downsizing: policy options to reduce portion sizes to help tackle obesity.

The worldwide prevalence of obesity and overweight has risen substantially over the past three decades with no country yet achieving a reduction.1 International and national ambitions to “end childhood obesity”2 and “reduce non-communicable diseases by 25% by 2025”3 are unmatched by policiesthat could realise them. The causes of obesity are complex but overconsumption of food and sugary drinksis a critical proximal determinant, driven in part by large portion sizes. The importance of developing interventions and policies to reduce the size, availability, and appeal of large portionsis underscored by the compelling evidence that people eat and drink more from larger portions

Interventions to increase adherence to medications for tobacco dependence.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological treatments for tobacco dependence, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been shown to be safe and effective interventions for smoking cessation. Higher levels of adherence to these medications increase the likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, but many smokers use them at a lower dose and for less time than is optimal. It is important to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to increase medication adherence. Such interventions may address motivation to use medication, such as influencing beliefs about the value of taking medications, or provide support to overcome problems with maintaining adherence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation on medication adherence and smoking abstinence compared with a control group typically receiving standard care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to the 3 September 2018. We also conducted forward and backward citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised studies in which adults using active pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation were allocated to an intervention arm where there was a principal focus on increasing adherence to medications for tobacco dependence, or a control arm providing standard care. Dependent on setting, standard care may have comprised minimal support or varying degrees of behavioural support. Included studies used a measure that allowed assessment of the degree of medication adherence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data for included studies and assessed risk of bias. For continuous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs). In meta-analyses for adherence outcomes, we combined dichotomous and continuous data using the generic inverse variance method and reported pooled effect sizes as SMDs; for abstinence outcomes, we reported and pooled dichotomous outcomes. We obtained pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. We conducted subgroup analyses to assess whether the primary focus of the adherence treatment ('practicalities' versus 'perceptions' versus both), the delivery approach (participant versus clinician-centred) or the medication type were associated with effectiveness. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two new studies, giving a total of 10 studies, involving 3655 participants. The medication adherence interventions studied were all provided in addition to standard behavioural support.They typically provided further information on the rationale for, and emphasised the importance of, adherence to medication or supported the development of strategies to overcome problems with maintaining adherence (or both). Seven studies targeted adherence to NRT, two to bupropion and one to varenicline. Most studies were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias, with four of these studies judged at high risk of attrition or detection bias. Only one study was judged to be at low risk of bias.Meta-analysis of all 10 included studies (12 comparisons) provided moderate-certainty evidence that adherence interventions led to small improvements in adherence (i.e. the mean amount of medication consumed; SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.18; I² = 6%; n = 3655), limited by risk of bias. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome identified no significant subgroup effects, with effect sizes for subgroups imprecisely estimated. However, there was a very weak indication that interventions focused on the 'practicalities' of adhering to treatment (i.e. capabilities, resources, levels of support or skills) may be effective (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; I² = 39%; n = 1752), whereas interventions focused on treatment 'perceptions' (i.e. beliefs, cognitions, concerns and preferences; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.24; I² = 0%; n = 839) or on both (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.16; I² = 0%; n = 1064), may not be effective. Participant-centred interventions may be effective (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.23; I² = 20%; n = 2791), whereas those that are clinician-centred may not (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; I² = 0%; n = 864).Five studies assessed short-term smoking abstinence (five comparisons), while an overlapping set of five studies (seven comparisons) assessed long-term smoking abstinence of six months or more. Meta-analyses resulted in low-certainty evidence that adherence interventions may slightly increase short-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 1795) and long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.40; I² = 48%; n = 3593). In both cases, the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision, with CIs encompassing minimal harm as well as moderate benefit, and a high likelihood that further evidence will change the estimate of the effect. There was no evidence that interventions to increase adherence to medication led to any adverse events. Studies did not report on factors plausibly associated with increases in adherence, such as self-efficacy, understanding of and attitudes toward treatment, and motivation and intentions to quit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people who are stopping smoking and receiving behavioural support, there is moderate-certainty evidence that enhanced behavioural support focusing on adherence to smoking cessation medications can modestly improve adherence. There is only low-certainty evidence that this may slightly improve the likelihood of cessation in the shorter or longer-term. Interventions to increase adherence can aim to address the practicalities of taking medication, change perceptions about medication, such as reasons to take it or concerns about doing so, or both. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to confirm which approach is more effective. There is no evidence on whether such interventions are effective for people who are stopping smoking without standard behavioural support.NIHR U

Beyond choice architecture: advancing the science of changing behaviour at scale.

Addressing the global threats to population and planetary health requires changing many behaviours at scale. This demands consideration not only of the effect size of an intervention but also its reach - the proportion of the population exposed to the intervention.We propose that a relatively under-researched and generally poorly specified set of interventions involving changes to physical micro-environments - often referred to as Choice Architecture - has the potential to make a significant contribution to meeting this urgent challenge.Realising the potential of Choice Architecture interventions requires integration of basic - i.e. laboratory-based - and applied - i.e. field-based - research, generating interventions that can be delivered at scale alongside advancing theory. We illustrate this with examples to highlight the complementarity of laboratory and field studies informed by and in turn updating the results of evidence synthesis. The examples comprise two sets of interventions - changing the relative availability of products and changing their size - to reduce consumption of meat, energy from food and alcohol across populations

Beyond choice architecture:advancing the science of changing behaviour at scale

Abstract Addressing the global threats to population and planetary health requires changing many behaviours at scale. This demands consideration not only of the effect size of an intervention but also its reach – the proportion of the population exposed to the intervention. We propose that a relatively under-researched and generally poorly specified set of interventions involving changes to physical micro-environments – often referred to as Choice Architecture - has the potential to make a significant contribution to meeting this urgent challenge. Realising the potential of Choice Architecture interventions requires integration of basic – i.e. laboratory-based – and applied – i.e. field-based – research, generating interventions that can be delivered at scale alongside advancing theory. We illustrate this with examples to highlight the complementarity of laboratory and field studies informed by and in turn updating the results of evidence synthesis. The examples comprise two sets of interventions – changing the relative availability of products and changing their size - to reduce consumption of meat, energy from food and alcohol across populations

Impact of tobacco outlet density and proximity on smoking cessation: a longitudinal observational study in two English cities.

A previous study conducted in the USA reported an association between residential proximity to a tobacco outlet and reduced likelihood of a quit attempt enduring beyond six months. We replicated this study in an English urban setting using data on 611 smokers motivated to quit, of whom 66 were biochemically validated as being quit at six months. Sustained quitting at six months was unrelated to residential proximity of a tobacco outlet. Future studies would be improved by the use of validated mappings of retail outlets, mapped in relation to multiple activity spaces, not just residence

Impact of bottle size on in-home consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages: protocol for a feasibility and acceptability study.

BACKGROUND: Intake of free sugars in the population exceeds recommendations, with the largest source in the diet being sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). SSB consumption is linked to adverse health consequences and contributes to health inequalities, given greater consumption amongst the most deprived. One possible intervention is to reduce the available sizes of SSB packaging but there is an absence of evidence that this would reduce consumption. Based on evidence from studies targeting food consumption that people consume less when exposed to smaller package sizes, we hypothesise that presenting SSBs in smaller containers reduces consumption. We are planning a crossover randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of presenting a fixed volume of SSB in different bottle sizes on consumption at home. To reduce the uncertainties related to this trial, we propose a preliminary study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, allocation, measurement, retention and intervention procedures. METHODS/DESIGN: Households which purchase at least 2 l of regular cola drinks per week and live in Cambridgeshire, UK will have a set amount of a cola SSB (based on their typical weekly purchasing of cola) delivered to their homes each week by the research team. This total amount of cola will be packaged into bottles of one of four sizes: (i) 1500 ml, (ii) 1000 ml, (iii) 500 ml or (iv) 250 ml. A crossover design will be used in which households will each receive all four of the week-long interventions (the four different bottle sizes) over time, randomised in their order of presentation. Approximately 100 eligible households will be approached to assess the proportion interested in actively participating in the study. Of those interested, 16 will be invited to continue participation. DISCUSSION: The findings will inform the procedures for a crossover randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of presenting a fixed volume of SSB in different bottle sizes on consumption at home. The findings from such a trial are expected to provide the best estimate to date of the effect of container size on beverage consumption and inform ongoing scientific and policy discussions about the effectiveness of this intervention at reducing population intake of free sugars in beverages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14964130.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central at http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-015-0037-8

Choosing between an apple and a chocolate bar: the impact of health and taste labels.

Increasing the consumption of fruit and vegetables is a central component of improving population health. Reasons people give for choosing one food over another suggest health is of lower importance than taste. This study assesses the impact of using a simple descriptive label to highlight the taste as opposed to the health value of fruit on the likelihood of its selection. Participants (N=439) were randomly allocated to one of five groups that varied in the label added to an apple: apple; healthy apple; succulent apple; healthy and succulent apple; succulent and healthy apple. The primary outcome measure was selection of either an apple or a chocolate bar as a dessert. Measures of the perceived qualities of the apple (taste, health, value, quality, satiety) and of participant characteristics (restraint, belief that tasty foods are unhealthy, BMI) were also taken. When compared with apple selection without any descriptor (50%), the labels combining both health and taste descriptors significantly increased selection of the apple ('healthy & succulent' 65.9% and 'succulent & healthy' 62.4%), while the use of a single descriptor had no impact on the rate of apple selection ('healthy' 50.5% and 'succulent' 52%). The strongest predictors of individual dessert choice were the taste score given to the apple, and the lack of belief that healthy foods are not tasty. Interventions that emphasize the taste attributes of healthier foods are likely to be more effective at achieving healthier diets than those emphasizing health alone