Exploring the genetic aetiology of trust in adolescents:Combined twin and DNA analyses

Behavioral traits generally show moderate to strong genetic influence, with heritability estimates of around 50%. Some recent research has suggested that trust may be an exception because it is more strongly influenced by social interactions. In a sample of over 7,000 adolescent twins from the United Kingdom’s Twins Early Development Study, we found broad sense heritability estimates of 57% for generalized trust and 51% for trust in friends. Genomic-relatedness-matrix restricted maximum likelihood (GREML) estimates in the same sample indicate that 21% of the narrow sense genetic variance can be explained by common single nucleotide polymorphisms for generalized trust and 43% for trust in friends. As expected, this implies a large amount of unexplained heritability, although power is low for estimating DNA-based heritability. The missing heritability may be accounted for by interactions between DNA and the social environment during development or via gene–environment correlations with rare variants. How these genes and environments correlate seem especially important for the development of trust

Do calorie labels change energy purchased in a simulated online food delivery platform? A multi-arm randomised controlled trial

Background: As rates of obesity and overweight continue to increase in the UK, calorie labels have been introduced on menus as a policy option to provide information to consumers on the energy content of foods and to enable informed choices. This study tested whether the addition of calorie labels to items in a simulated food delivery platform may reduce the energy content of items selected. Methods: UK adults (n = 8,780) who used food delivery platforms were asked to use the simulated platform as they would in real life to order a meal for themselves. Participants were randomly allocated to a control condition (no calorie labels) or to one of seven intervention groups: (1) large size calorie labels adjacent to the price (LP), (2) large size label adjacent to the product name (LN), (3) small label adjacent to price (SP), (4) small label adjacent to product name (SN), (5) LP with a calorie label switch-off filter (LP + Off), (6) LP with a switch-on filter (LP + On), or, (7) LP with a summary label of the total basket energy content (LP + Sum). Regression analysis assessed the impact of calorie labels on energy content of foods selected compared to the control condition. Results: The mean energy selected in the control condition was 1408 kcal (95%CI: 93, 2719). There was a statistically significant reduction in mean energy selected in five of the seven intervention trial arms (LN labels (-60 kcal, 95%CI: -111, -6), SN (-73, 95%CI: -125, -19), LP + Off (-110, 95%CI: -161, -57), LP + On (-109, 95%CI: -159, -57), LP + Sum (-85 kcal, 95%CI: -137, -30). There was no evidence the other two conditions (LP (-33, 95%CI: -88, 24) and SP (-52, 95%CI: -105, 2)) differed from control. There was no evidence of an effect of any intervention when the analysis was restricted to participants who were overweight or obese. Conclusion: Adding calorie labels to food items in a simulated online food delivery platform reduced the energy content of foods selected in five out of seven labelling scenarios. This study provides useful information to inform the implementation of these labels in a food delivery platform context

'Immunity Passports' for SARS-CoV-2: an online experimental study of the impact of antibody test terminology on perceived risk and behaviour.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of describing an antibody-positive test result using the terms Immunity and Passport or Certificate, alone or in combination, on perceived risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and protective behaviours. DESIGN: 2×3 experimental design. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: 1204 adults from a UK research panel. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive one of six descriptions of an antibody test and results showing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, differing in the terms describing the type of test (Immunity vs Antibody) and the test result (Passport vs Certificate vs Test). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: proportion of participants perceiving no risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 given an antibody-positive test result. Other outcomes include: intended changes to frequency of hand washing and physical distancing. RESULTS: When using the term Immunity (vs Antibody), 19.1% of participants (95% CI 16.1% to 22.5%) (vs 9.8% (95% CI 7.5% to 12.4%)) perceived no risk of catching coronavirus given an antibody-positive test result (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.91 (95% CI 1.52 to 5.55)). Using the terms Passport or Certificate-as opposed to Test-had no significant effect (AOR: 1.24 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.48) and AOR: 0.96 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.99) respectively). There was no significant interaction between the effects of the test and result terminology. Across groups, perceiving no risk of infection was associated with an intention to wash hands less frequently (AOR: 2.32 (95% CI 1.25 to 4.28)); there was no significant association with intended avoidance of physical contact (AOR: 1.37 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.03)). CONCLUSIONS: Using the term Immunity (vs Antibody) to describe antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 increases the proportion of people believing that an antibody-positive result means they have no risk of catching coronavirus in the future, a perception that may be associated with less frequent hand washing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/tjwz8/files/

The impact of believing you have had COVID-19 on self-reported behaviour: Cross-sectional survey

Funder: National Institute for Health Research; funder-id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272Funder: UK GovernmentFunder: Cancer Research UKObjectives: To investigate whether people who think they have had COVID-19 are less likely to report engaging with lockdown measures compared with those who think they have not had COVID-19. Design: On-line cross-sectional survey. Setting: Data were collected between 20th and 22nd April 2020. Participants: 6149 participants living in the UK aged 18 years or over. Main outcome measures: Perceived immunity to COVID-19, self-reported adherence to social distancing measures (going out for essential shopping, nonessential shopping, and meeting up with friends/family; total out-of-home activity), worry about COVID-19 and perceived risk of COVID-19 to oneself and people in the UK. Knowledge that cough and high temperature / fever are the main symptoms of COVID-19. We used logistic regression analyses and one-way ANOVAs to investigate associations between believing you had had COVID-19 and binary and continuous outcomes respectively. Results: In this sample, 1493 people (24.3%) thought they had had COVID-19 but only 245 (4.0%) reported having received a positive test result. Reported test results were often incongruent with participants’ belief that they had had COVID-19. People who believed that they had had COVID-19 were: more likely to agree that they had some immunity to COVID-19; less likely to report adhering to lockdown measures; less worried about COVID-19; and less likely to know that cough and high temperature / fever are two of the most common symptoms of COVID-19. Conclusions: At the time of data collection, the percentage of people in the UK who thought they had already had COVID-19 was about twice the estimated infection rate. Those who believed they had had COVID-19 were more likely to report leaving home. This may contribute to transmission of the virus. Clear communications to this growing group are needed to explain why protective measures continue to be important and to encourage sustained adherence

'Immunity Passports' for SARS-CoV-2:an online experimental study of the impact of antibody test terminology on perceived risk and behaviour

Objective To assess the impact of describing an antibody-positive test result using the terms Immunity and Passport or Certificate, alone or in combination, on perceived risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and protective behaviours. Design 2×3 experimental design. Setting Online. Participants 1204 adults from a UK research panel. Intervention Participants were randomised to receive one of six descriptions of an antibody test and results showing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, differing in the terms describing the type of test (Immunity vs Antibody) and the test result (Passport vs Certificate vs Test). Main outcome measures Primary outcome: proportion of participants perceiving no risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 given an antibody-positive test result. Other outcomes include: intended changes to frequency of hand washing and physical distancing. Results When using the term Immunity (vs Antibody), 19.1% of participants (95% CI 16.1% to 22.5%) (vs 9.8% (95% CI 7.5% to 12.4%)) perceived no risk of catching coronavirus given an antibody-positive test result (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.91 (95% CI 1.52 to 5.55)). Using the terms Passport or Certificate-as opposed to Test-had no significant effect (AOR: 1.24 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.48) and AOR: 0.96 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.99) respectively). There was no significant interaction between the effects of the test and result terminology. Across groups, perceiving no risk of infection was associated with an intention to wash hands less frequently (AOR: 2.32 (95% CI 1.25 to 4.28)); there was no significant association with intended avoidance of physical contact (AOR: 1.37 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.03)). Conclusions Using the term Immunity (vs Antibody) to describe antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 increases the proportion of people believing that an antibody-positive result means they have no risk of catching coronavirus in the future, a perception that may be associated with less frequent hand washing. Trial registration number Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/tjwz8/files/</p