A possible dose–response association between distance to farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands, frequency of shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and body mass index among customers in the Southern United States

Background: The association between farmers’ market characteristics and consumer shopping habits remains unclear. Our objective was to examine associations among distance to farmers’ markets, amenities within farmers’ markets, frequency of farmers’ market shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and body mass index (BMI). We hypothesized that the relationship between frequency of farmers’ market shopping and BMI would be mediated by fruit and vegetable consumption. Methods: In 15 farmers’ markets in northeastern North Carolina, July–September 2015, we conducted a crosssectional survey among 263 farmers’ market customers (199 provided complete address data) and conducted farmers’ market audits. To participate, customers had to be over 18 years of age, and English speaking. Dependent variables included farmers’ market shopping frequency, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI. Analysis of variance, adjusted multinomial logistic regression, Poisson regression, and linear regression models, adjusted for age, race, sex, and education, were used to examine associations between distance to farmers’ markets, amenities within farmers’ markets, frequency of farmers’ market shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI. Results: Those who reported shopping at farmers’ markets a few times per year or less reported consuming 4.4 (standard deviation = 1.7) daily servings of fruits and vegetables, and those who reported shopping 2 or more times per week reported consuming 5.5 (2.2) daily servings. There was no association between farmers’ market amenities, and shopping frequency or fruit and vegetable consumption. Those who shopped 2 or more times per week had a statistically significantly lower BMI than those who shopped less frequently. There was no evidence of mediation of the relationship between frequency of shopping and BMI by fruit and vegetable consumption. Conclusions: More work should be done to understand factors within farmers’ markets that encourage fruit and vegetable purchases.ECU Open Access Publishing Support Fun

A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world

A possible dose–response association between distance to farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands, frequency of shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and body mass index among customers in the Southern United States

Background: The association between farmers’ market characteristics and consumer shopping habits remains\r\nunclear. Our objective was to examine associations among distance to farmers’ markets, amenities within farmers’\r\nmarkets, frequency of farmers’ market shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and body mass index (BMI). We\r\nhypothesized that the relationship between frequency of farmers’ market shopping and BMI would be mediated by\r\nfruit and vegetable consumption.\r\nMethods: In 15 farmers’ markets in northeastern North Carolina, July–September 2015, we conducted a crosssectional\r\nsurvey among 263 farmers’ market customers (199 provided complete address data) and conducted\r\nfarmers’ market audits. To participate, customers had to be over 18 years of age, and English speaking. Dependent\r\nvariables included farmers’ market shopping frequency, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI. Analysis of\r\nvariance, adjusted multinomial logistic regression, Poisson regression, and linear regression models, adjusted for\r\nage, race, sex, and education, were used to examine associations between distance to farmers’ markets, amenities\r\nwithin farmers’ markets, frequency of farmers’ market shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI.\r\nResults: Those who reported shopping at farmers’ markets a few times per year or less reported consuming 4.4\r\n(standard deviation = 1.7) daily servings of fruits and vegetables, and those who reported shopping 2 or more times\r\nper week reported consuming 5.5 (2.2) daily servings. There was no association between farmers’ market amenities,\r\nand shopping frequency or fruit and vegetable consumption. Those who shopped 2 or more times per week had a\r\nstatistically significantly lower BMI than those who shopped less frequently. There was no evidence of mediation of\r\nthe relationship between frequency of shopping and BMI by fruit and vegetable consumption.\r\nConclusions: More work should be done to understand factors within farmers’ markets that encourage fruit and\r\nvegetable purchases

A Global Experiment on Motivating Social Distancing during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e. a controlling message) compared to no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly-internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared to the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly-internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing: Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

In COVID-19 health messaging, loss framing increases anxiety with little-to-no concomitant benefits: Experimental evidence from 84 countries

The COVID-19 pandemic (and its aftermath) highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g., “If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others”) or potential gains (e.g., “If you practice these steps, you can protect yourself and others”)? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimentally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behavioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions