Dataset Information

Impact of proximity of healthier versus less healthy foods on intake: A lab-based experiment.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Placing food further away from people decreases likelihood of consumption ("Proximity Effect"). However, it is unclear how proximity affects consumption when both healthier and less healthy foods are available and cognitive resource for self-control is limited. AIMS:To test the hypothesis that when both healthier (raisins) and less healthy (chocolate M&Ms) foods are available, placing less healthy food far, rather than near, increases the likelihood that healthier food is consumed. METHODS:General population participants (N?=?248) were all put under cognitive load and randomised to one of four groups: 1. Raisins near (20?cm), M&Ms far (70?cm); 2. Both foods near; 3. M&Ms near, raisins far; 4. Both far. PRIMARY OUTCOME:proportions of participants consuming raisins and M&Ms, respectively. RESULTS:The results did not support the primary hypothesis: when healthier and less healthy foods were both available, placing M&Ms far, rather than near, did not increase likelihood of consuming raisins (OR?=?1.54, p?=?.432). Regardless of the M&Ms proximity, likelihood of consuming raisins was unaffected by the raisins' proximity (62.9%(near) vs. 56.5%(far) OR?=?0.61, p?=?.211). Likelihood of consuming M&Ms non-significantly decreased when they were far and raisins were near, and when both foods were far (OR?=?2.83, p?=?.057). Likelihood of consuming M&Ms was affected by M&Ms proximity, being higher when near (68.3%) than far (55.6%), OR?=?0.39, p?=?.015. Indices of cognitive load impact (higher vs lower) were unrelated to consumption of either food. CONCLUSIONS:Likelihood of consuming a healthier food was unaffected by its proximity and that of a less healthy food. By contrast, likelihood of consuming a less healthy food was influenced by its proximity and possibly by that of a healthier food. These effects need replication in studies designed to detect smaller effect sizes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was registered online with ISRCTN (ISRCTN11740813).

SUBMITTER: Hunter JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6335384 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of proximity of healthier versus less healthy foods on intake: A lab-based experiment.

Hunter J A JA Hollands G J GJ Pilling M M Marteau T M TM

Appetite 20181024

<h4>Background</h4>Placing food further away from people decreases likelihood of consumption ("Proximity Effect"). However, it is unclear how proximity affects consumption when both healthier and less healthy foods are available and cognitive resource for self-control is limited.<h4>Aims</h4>To test the hypothesis that when both healthier (raisins) and less healthy (chocolate M&Ms) foods are available, placing less healthy food far, rather than near, increases the likelihood that healthier food ...[more]

PMID: 30367891

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEnvironmental cues shape behaviour, but few studies compare the impact of targeting healthier vs. less-healthy cues. One online study suggested greater impact on selection from increasing the number of less-healthy (vs. healthier) snacks. The current study aimed to: (1) extend the previous study by using physically-present snacks for immediate consumption; (2) explore responsiveness by socio-economic position; (3) investigate possible mediators (response inhibition, food appeal) of any socio-economic differences in selection.MethodsIn a between-subjects laboratory experiment UK adults (n = 417) were randomised according to their ID number (without blinding) to one of three ranges of options: Two healthier, two less-healthy ["Equal"] (n = 136); Six healthier, two less-healthy ["Increased Healthier"] (n = 143); Two healthier, six less-healthy ["Increased Less-Healthy"] (n = 138). Participants completed measures of response inhibition and food appeal, and selected a snack for immediate consumption from their allocated range. The primary outcome was selection of a healthier (over less-healthy) snack.ResultsThe odds of selecting a less-healthy snack were 2.9 times higher (95%CIs:1.7,5.1) in the Increased Less-Healthy condition compared to the Equal condition. The odds of selecting a healthier snack were 2.5 times higher (95%CIs:1.5,4.1) in the Increased Healthier (vs. Equal) condition. There was no significant difference in the size of these effects (- 0.2; 95%CIs:-1.1,0.7). Findings were inconclusive with regard to interactions by education, but the direction of effects was consistent with potentially larger impact of the Increased Healthier condition on selection for higher-educated participants, and potentially larger impact of the Increased Less-Healthy condition for less-educated participants.ConclusionsA greater impact from increasing the number of less-healthy (over healthier) foods was not replicated when selecting snacks for immediate consumption: both increased selections of the targeted foods with no evidence of a difference in effectiveness. The observed pattern of results suggested possible differential impact by education, albeit not statistically significant. If replicated in larger studies, this could suggest that removing less-healthy options has the potential to reduce health inequalities due to unhealthier diets. Conversely, adding healthier options could have the potential to increase these inequalities.Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN34626166 ; 11/06/2018; Retrospectively registered.

Project description:ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prices of healthier versus less healthy foods/diet patterns while accounting for key sources of heterogeneity.Data sourcesMEDLINE (2000-2011), supplemented with expert consultations and hand reviews of reference lists and related citations.DesignStudies reviewed independently and in duplicate were included if reporting mean retail price of foods or diet patterns stratified by healthfulness. We extracted, in duplicate, mean prices and their uncertainties of healthier and less healthy foods/diet patterns and rated the intensity of health differences for each comparison (range 1-10). Prices were adjusted for inflation and the World Bank purchasing power parity, and standardised to the international dollar (defined as US$1) in 2011. Using random effects models, we quantified price differences of healthier versus less healthy options for specific food types, diet patterns and units of price (serving, day and calorie). Statistical heterogeneity was quantified using I(2) statistics.Results27 studies from 10 countries met the inclusion criteria. Among food groups, meats/protein had largest price differences: healthier options cost $0.29/serving (95% CI $0.19 to $0.40) and $0.47/200 kcal ($0.42 to $0.53) more than less healthy options. Price differences per serving for healthier versus less healthy foods were smaller among grains ($0.03), dairy (-$0.004), snacks/sweets ($0.12) and fats/oils ($0.02; p<0.05 each) and not significant for soda/juice ($0.11, p=0.64). Comparing extremes (top vs bottom quantile) of food-based diet patterns, healthier diets cost $1.48/day ($1.01 to $1.95) and $1.54/2000 kcal ($1.15 to $1.94) more. Comparing nutrient-based patterns, price per day was not significantly different (top vs bottom quantile: $0.04; p=0.916), whereas price per 2000 kcal was $1.56 ($0.61 to $2.51) more. Adjustment for intensity of differences in healthfulness yielded similar results.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis provides the best evidence until today of price differences of healthier vs less healthy foods/diet patterns, highlighting the challenges and opportunities for reducing financial barriers to healthy eating.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a growing concern, but limited evidence, that price promotions contribute to a poor diet and the social patterning of diet-related disease.ObjectiveWe examined the following questions: 1) Are less-healthy foods more likely to be promoted than healthier foods? 2) Are consumers more responsive to promotions on less-healthy products? 3) Are there socioeconomic differences in food purchases in response to price promotions?DesignWith the use of hierarchical regression, we analyzed data on purchases of 11,323 products within 135 food and beverage categories from 26,986 households in Great Britain during 2010. Major supermarkets operated the same price promotions in all branches. The number of stores that offered price promotions on each product for each week was used to measure the frequency of price promotions. We assessed the healthiness of each product by using a nutrient profiling (NP) model.ResultsA total of 6788 products (60%) were in healthier categories and 4535 products (40%) were in less-healthy categories. There was no significant gap in the frequency of promotion by the healthiness of products neither within nor between categories. However, after we controlled for the reference price, price discount rate, and brand-specific effects, the sales uplift arising from price promotions was larger in less-healthy than in healthier categories; a 1-SD point increase in the category mean NP score, implying the category becomes less healthy, was associated with an additional 7.7-percentage point increase in sales (from 27.3% to 35.0%; P < 0.01). The magnitude of the sales uplift from promotions was larger for higher-socioeconomic status (SES) groups than for lower ones (34.6% for the high-SES group, 28.1% for the middle-SES group, and 23.1% for the low-SES group). Finally, there was no significant SES gap in the absolute volume of purchases of less-healthy foods made on promotion.ConclusionAttempts to limit promotions on less-healthy foods could improve the population diet but would be unlikely to reduce health inequalities arising from poorer diets in low-socioeconomic groups.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United Kingdom, the Food Standards Agency-Ofcom nutrient profiling model (FSA-Ofcom model) is used to define less-healthy foods that cannot be advertised to children. However, there has been limited investigation of whether less-healthy foods defined by this model are associated with prospective health outcomes. The objective of this study was to test whether consumption of less-healthy food as defined by the FSA-Ofcom model is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD).Methods and findingsWe used data from the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk cohort study in adults (n = 25,639) aged 40-79 years who completed a 7-day diet diary between 1993 and 1997. Incident CVD (primary outcome), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality (secondary outcomes) were identified using record linkage to hospital admissions data and death certificates up to 31 March 2015. Each food and beverage item reported was coded and given a continuous score, using the FSA-Ofcom model, based on the consumption of energy; saturated fat; total sugar; sodium; nonsoluble fibre; protein; and fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Items were classified as less-healthy using Ofcom regulation thresholds. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to test for an association between consumption of less-healthy food and incident CVD. Sensitivity analyses explored whether the results differed based on the definition of the exposure. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, behavioural risk factors, clinical risk factors, and socioeconomic status. Participants were followed up for a mean of 16.4 years. During follow-up, there were 4,965 incident cases of CVD (1,524 fatal within 30 days). In the unadjusted analyses, we observed an association between consumption of less-healthy food and incident CVD (test for linear trend over quintile groups, p < 0.01). After adjustment for covariates (sociodemographic, behavioural, and indices of cardiovascular risk), we found no association between consumption of less-healthy food and incident CVD (p = 0.84) or cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.90), but there was an association between consumption of less-healthy food and all-cause mortality (test for linear trend, p = 0.006; quintile group 5, highest consumption of less-healthy food, versus quintile group 1, HR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20). Sensitivity analyses produced similar results. The study is observational and relies on self-report of dietary consumption. Despite adjustment for known and reported confounders, residual confounding is possible.ConclusionsAfter adjustment for potential confounding factors, no significant association between consumption of less-healthy food (as classified by the FSA-Ofcom model) and CVD was observed in this study. This suggests, in the UK setting, that the FSA-Ofcom model is not consistently discriminating among foods with respect to their association with CVD. More studies are needed to understand better the relationship between consumption of less-healthy food, defined by the FSA-Ofcom model, and indices of health.

Project description:BackgroundAvailability interventions have been hypothesised to make limited demands on conscious processes and, as a result, to be less likely to generate health inequalities than cognitively-oriented interventions. Here we synthesise existing evidence to examine whether the impact of altering the availability of healthier vs. less-healthy options differs by socioeconomic position.MethodsIndividual-level data (21,360 observations from 7,375 participants) from six studies (conducted online (n = 4) and in laboratories (n = 2)) were pooled for mega-analysis. Multilevel logistic regressions analysed the impact of altering the availability of healthier options on selection of a healthier (rather than a less-healthy) option by socioeconomic position, assessed by (a) education and (b) income.ResultsParticipants had over threefold higher odds of selecting a healthier option when the available range was predominantly healthier compared to selections when the range offered was predominantly less-healthy (odds ratio (OR): 3.8; 95%CIs: 3.5, 4.1). Less educated participants were less likely to select healthier options in each availability condition (ORs: 0.75-0.85; all p < 0.005), but there was no evidence of differences in healthier option selection by income. Compared to selections when the range offered was predominantly less-healthy, when predominantly healthier options were available there was a 31% increase in selecting healthier options for the most educated group vs 27% for the least educated. This modest degree of increased responsiveness in the most educated group appeared only to occur when healthier options were predominant. There was no evidence of any differential response to the intervention by income.ConclusionIncreasing the proportion of healthier options available increases the selection of healthier options across socioeconomic positions. Availability interventions may have a slightly larger beneficial effect on those with the highest levels of education in settings when healthier options predominate.

Project description:BackgroundAltering the availability of healthier or less-healthy products may increase healthier purchases, but evidence is currently limited. The current study aimed to investigate the impact of altering the absolute-and-relative availability of healthier and less-healthy products - i.e. simultaneously altering the number of options available and the proportion of healthier options - in hospital vending machines.MethodsAn adapted multiple treatment reversal design was used, altering products available in ten vending machines serving snack foods and/or cold drinks in one English hospital. Machines were randomised to one of two sequences for the seven 4-week study periods: ABCADEA or ADEABCA. In Condition A (study periods 1, 4 and 7) the proportions of healthier products were standardised across all machines, so that 25% of all snack slots and 75% of drink slots were healthier. In Condition B, 20% of vending machine slots were emptied by removing less-healthy products. In Condition C, the empty slots created in Condition B were filled with healthier products. Conditions D and E were operationalised in the same way as B and C, except healthier products were removed in D, and then less-healthy products added in E. Sales data were obtained from machine restocking records. Separate linear mixed models were conducted to examine the impact of altering availability on energy purchased (kcal) from (i) snacks or (ii) drinks each week, with random effects for vending machine.ResultsThe energy purchased from drinks was reduced when the number of slots containing less-healthy drinks was decreased, compared to standardised levels (- 52.6%; 95%CI: - 69.3,-26.9). Findings were inconclusive for energy purchased from snacks when less-healthy snack slots were reduced (- 17.2%; 95%CI: - 47.4,30.5). Results for altering the number of slots for healthier drinks or snacks were similarly inconclusive, with no statistically significant impact on energy purchased.ConclusionsReducing the availability of less-healthy drinks could reduce the energy purchased from drinks in vending machines. Further studies are needed to establish whether any effects might be smaller for snacks, or found with higher baseline proportions of healthier options.

Dataset Information

Impact of proximity of healthier versus less healthy foods on intake: A lab-based experiment.

Publications

Impact of proximity of healthier versus less healthy foods on intake: A lab-based experiment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets