Effect of snack-food proximity on intake in general population samples with higher and lower cognitive resource.

OBJECTIVE: Placing snack-food further away from people consistently decreases its consumption ("proximity effect"). However, given diet-related health inequalities, it is important to know whether interventions that alter food proximity have potential to change behaviour regardless of cognitive resource (capacity for self-control). This is often lower in those in lower socio-economic positions, who also tend to have less healthy diet-related behaviours. Study 1 aims to replicate the proximity effect in a general population sample and estimate whether trait-level cognitive resource moderates the effect. In a stronger test, Study 2 investigates whether the effect is similar regardless of manipulated state-level cognitive resource. METHOD: Participants were recruited into two laboratory studies (Study 1: n = 159; Study 2: n = 246). A bowl of an unhealthy snack was positioned near (20 cm) or far (70 cm) from the participant, as randomised. In Study 2, participants were further randomised to a cognitive load intervention. The pre-specified primary outcome was the proportion of participants taking any of the snack. RESULTS: Significantly fewer participants took the snack when far compared with near in Study 2 (57.7% vs 70.7%, β = -1.63, p = 0.020), but not in Study 1 (53.8% vs 63.3%, X2 = 1.12, p = 0.289). Removing participants who moved the bowl (i.e. who did not adhere to protocol), increased the effect-sizes: Study 1: 39.3% vs 63.9%, X2 = 6.43, p = 0.011; Study 2: 56.0% vs 73.9%, β = -2.46, p = 0.003. Effects were not moderated by cognitive resource. CONCLUSIONS: These studies provide the most robust evidence to date that placing food further away reduces likelihood of consumption in general population samples, an effect unlikely to be moderated by cognitive resource. This indicates potential for interventions altering food proximity to contribute to addressing health inequalities, but requires testing in real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Both studies were registered with ISRCTN (Study 1 reference no.: ISRCTN46995850, Study 2 reference no.: ISRCTN14239872)

Impact of altering proximity on snack food intake in individuals with high and low executive function: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite attempts to improve diet at population level, people living in material and social deprivation continue to consume unhealthy diets. Executive function - the ability to regulate behaviour and resist impulses - is weaker in individuals living in deprivation. Dietary interventions that educate and persuade people to reflect on and actively change behaviour may therefore disproportionately benefit individuals who are socioeconomically advantaged and have stronger executive function, thus exacerbating inequalities in health resulting from unhealthy diets. In contrast, manipulating environmental cues, such as how far away a food is placed, does not appeal to reasoned action and is thought to operate largely outside of awareness to influence behaviour. People eat more of a food when it is placed closer to them, an effect seemingly robust to context, food quality and body-weight status. However, previous studies of this 'proximity effect' are limited by small samples consisting mainly of university staff or students, biased towards higher socio-economic position and therefore likely stronger executive function. This study aims to test the hypothesis that placing food further away from a person decreases intake of that food regardless of executive function. METHODS/DESIGN: 156 members of the general public, recruited from low and high socio-economic groups, will be randomised to one of two conditions varying in the proximity of a snack food relative to their position: 20 cm or 70 cm. Participants are told they will be taking part in a relaxation study - and are fully debriefed at the conclusion of the session. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants eating any amount of snack food and the secondary outcome is the mean amount eaten. Executive function is assessed using the Stroop task. DISCUSSION: The proposed study takes a novel step by investigating the effect of proximity on snack food intake in a general population sample consisting of those with high and low executive function, appropriately powered to detect the predicted proximity effect. If this effect occurs irrespective of executive function and socio-economic position, it may have potential to reduce inequalities patterned by socio-economic position if implemented in real-world settings such as shops or restaurants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with the ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN46995850 on 07 October 2015.This study is supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Sackler Prize, a doctoral training grant awarded to JAH. The study was also partially funded by the Department of Health Policy Research Program (Policy Research Unit in Behavior and Health [PR-UN-0409-10109]).This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3184-

Is (poly-) substance use associated with impaired inhibitory control? A mega-analysis controlling for confounders.

Many studies have reported that heavy substance use is associated with impaired response inhibition. Studies typically focused on associations with a single substance, while polysubstance use is common. Further, most studies compared heavy users with light/non-users, though substance use occurs along a continuum. The current mega-analysis accounted for these issues by aggregating individual data from 43 studies (3610 adult participants) that used the Go/No-Go (GNG) or Stop-signal task (SST) to assess inhibition among mostly "recreational" substance users (i.e., the rate of substance use disorders was low). Main and interaction effects of substance use, demographics, and task-characteristics were entered in a linear mixed model. Contrary to many studies and reviews in the field, we found that only lifetime cannabis use was associated with impaired response inhibition in the SST. An interaction effect was also observed: the relationship between tobacco use and response inhibition (in the SST) differed between cannabis users and non-users, with a negative association between tobacco use and inhibition in the cannabis non-users. In addition, participants' age, education level, and some task characteristics influenced inhibition outcomes. Overall, we found limited support for impaired inhibition among substance users when controlling for demographics and task-characteristics