Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Using a legal standard for scrutinising the regulation of food label claims, this study assessed whether consumers are misled about wholegrain (WG) content and product healthfulness based on common product labels.Design
First, a discrete choice experiment used pairs of hypothetical products with different amounts of WG, sugar and salt to measure effects on assessment of healthfulness; and second, a WG content comprehension assessment used actual product labels to assess respondent understanding.Setting
Online national panel survey.Participants
For a representative sample of US adults (n 1030), survey responses were collected in 2018 and analysed in 2019.Results
First, 29-47 % of respondents incorrectly identified the healthier product from paired options, and respondents who self-identified as having difficulty in understanding labels were more likely to err. Second, for actual products composed primarily of refined grains, 43-51 % of respondents overstated the WG content, whereas for one product composed primarily of WG, 17 % of respondents understated the WG content.Conclusions
The frequency of consumer misunderstanding of grain product labels was high in both study components. Potential policies to address consumer confusion include requiring disclosure of WG content as a percentage of total grain content or requiring disclosure of the grams of WG v. refined grains per serving.
SUBMITTER: Wilde P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8555857 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo understand the importance of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) product attributes to adult consumers in the USA by age and gender.DesignCross-sectional survey with a discrete choice experiment (best-worst, case 2, scaling) of 19 choice tasks in which participants answered what would make them most want to use and least want to use an ENDS product.Setting and participantsA national sample of adults (aged 18+ years) in the USA who had tried an ENDS product at least once.MeasuresWe included 9 ENDS attributes with levels that varied across 19 choice tasks. We performed a multinomial logistic regression to obtain overall importance scores, attribute-level part-worth utilities and most important attribute.ResultsOf 660 participants, 81% were white, 51% women and 37% had at least a 4-year college degree with an average age of 42.0 years (SD ±19.4). The attributes had the following importance: harms of use 17.6%; general effects 14.1%; cessation aid 12.6%; purchase price 12.1%; monthly cost 12.0%; nicotine content 11.4%; flavour availability 8.4%; device design 7.2%; modifiability 4.6%. Harms of use was the most important attribute for all ages and genders (p<0.05); variation in other important attributes existed by age though not by gender.ConclusionThis study identified the importance of nine ENDS attributes. Perceived harms of use of ENDS use appeared most important, and modifiability was least important. Variation by consumer group existed, which may allow for targeted interventions to modify ENDS use.
| S-EPMC6701580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study investigates individual preferences for work arrangements in a discrete choice experiment. Based on sociological and economic literature, we identified six essential job attributes-earnings, job security, training opportunities, scheduling flexibility, prestige of the company, and gender composition of the work team-and mapped these into hypothetical job offers. Out of three job offers, with different specifications in the respective job attributes, respondents had to choose the offer they considered as most attractive. In 2017, we implemented our choice experiment in two large-scale surveys conducted in two countries: Germany (N = 2,659) and the Netherlands (N = 2,678). Our analyses revealed that respondents considered all six job attributes in their decision process but had different priorities for each. Moreover, we found gendered preferences. Women preferred scheduling flexibility and a company with a good reputation, whereas men preferred jobs with high earnings and a permanent contract. Despite different national labor market regulations, different target populations, and different sampling strategies for the two surveys, job preferences for German and Dutch respondents were largely parallel.
| S-EPMC8274907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNurse practitioners play a critical role in improving the access to care and in meeting the needs for health care. However, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the average turnover rate of nurse practitioners was 10 % with associated total direct cost that ranged from $85,832 to $114,919 for each episode of turnover in the United States. Little is known about the job preference of nurse practitioners and the cost savings to an organization that provides jobs with characteristics attractive to nurse practitioners.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify the preferred job characteristics that are associated with nurse practitioners' job choices; and to determine the extent to which nurse practitioners would need to be compensated for practicing without these characteristics.DesignA two-stage design using a mixed method approach.Setting(s)The state of Georgia in the United States.Participants2757 nurse practitioners who were actively licensed were invited to participate. Of the 412 participants, 372 actively employed in Georgia were included in the analysis.MethodsA 2-stage discrete choice experiment was designed. Stage-1 was a qualitative design using a focus group to identify nurse practitioners' preferred job characteristics. Stage-2 was a quantitative design using survey distribution and analysis. A mixed logit model was used for ranking nurse practitioners' preferred job characteristics and the extent to which they would need to be compensated.ResultsOn average nurse practitioners were 47.4 years of age; the majority were female (90 %), white (75.3 %), and educated at the master's level (88.7 %). Participants did not value teams that were not very cohesive (β = -1.50); administration that was not very responsive and supportive (β = -1.04); being supervised by a physician (β = -0.58); not having their own panel of patients (β = -0.42); and not billing under their own National Provider Identifier (β = -0.18). Participants would need an increase in annual income of USD$21,780 for practicing in a not very cohesive team; USD$15,280 for practicing with a not very responsive administration; and USD$21,450 for being supervised by a physician.ConclusionsA cohesive, responsive, and supportive working environment and being able to practice independently are important characteristics for nurse practitioners when choosing a job. Healthcare managers should provide a workplace culture that reflects these preferred job characteristics to attract and retain nurse practitioners. Policymakers should consider reforming the scope of practice legislation to promote the independent practice of nurse practitioners.
| S-EPMC9671868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough nearly two-third of bankruptcy in the United States is medical in origin, a common assumption is that individuals facing a potentially lethal disease opt for cure at any cost. This assumption has never been tested, and knowledge of how the American population values a trade-off between cure and bankruptcy is unknown.ObjectivesTo determine the relative importance among the general American population of improved health versus improved financial risk protection, and to determine the impact of demographics on these preferences.MethodsA discrete-choice experiment was performed with 2359 members of the US population. Respondents were asked to value treatments with varying chances of cure and bankruptcy in the presence of a lethal disease. Latent class analysis with concomitant variables was performed, weighted for national representativeness. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the robustness of the results.ResultsIt was found that 31.3% of the American population values cure at all costs. Nevertheless, for 8.5% of the US population, financial solvency dominates concerns for health in medical decision making. Individuals who value cure at all costs are more likely to have had experience with serious disease and to be women. No demographic characteristics significantly predicted individuals who value solvency over cure.ConclusionsAlthough the average American values cure more than financial solvency, a cure-at-all-costs rubric describes the preferences of a minority of the population, and 1 in 12 value financial protection over any chances of cure. This study provides empirical evidence for how the US population values a trade-off between avoiding adverse health outcomes and facing bankruptcy. These findings bring to the fore the decision making that individuals face in balancing the acute financial burden of health care access.
| S-EPMC6739632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As new female-initiated HIV prevention products enter development, it is crucial to incorporate women's preferences to ensure products will be desired, accepted, and used. A discrete-choice experiment was designed to assess the relative importance of six attributes to stated choice of a vaginally delivered HIV prevention product. Sexually active women in South Africa and Zimbabwe aged 18-30 were recruited from two samples: product-experienced women from a randomized trial of four vaginal placebo forms and product-naïve community members. In a tablet-administered survey, 395 women chose between two hypothetical products over eight choice sets. Efficacy was the most important, but there were identifiable preferences among other attributes. Women preferred a product that also prevented pregnancy and caused some wetness (p < 0.001). They disliked a daily-use product (p = 0.002) and insertion by finger (p = 0.002). Although efficacy drove preference, wetness, pregnancy prevention, and dosing regimen were influential to stated choice of a product, and women were willing to trade some level of efficacy to have other more desired attributes.
| S-EPMC6990865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:It is desirable that public preferences are established and incorporated in emergency healthcare reforms. The aim of this study was to investigate preferences for local versus centralised provision of all emergency medical services (EMS) and explore what individuals think are important considerations for EMS delivery. DESIGN:A discrete choice experiment was conducted. The attributes used in the choice scenarios were: travel time to the hospital, waiting time to be seen, length of stay in the hospital, risks of dying, readmission and opportunity for outpatient care after emergency treatment at a local hospital. SETTING:North East England. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were a randomly sampled general population, aged 16 years or above recruited from Healthwatch Northumberland network database of lay members and from clinical contact with Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust via Patient Experience Team. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Analysis used logistic regression modelling techniques to determine the preference of each attribute. Marginal rates of substitution between attributes were estimated to understand the trade-offs individuals were willing to make. RESULTS:Responses were obtained from 148 people (62 completed a web and 86 a postal version). Respondents preferred shorter travel time to hospital, shorter waiting time, fewer number of days in hospital, low risk of death, low risk of readmission and outpatient follow-up care in their local hospital. However, individuals were willing to trade off increased travel time and waiting time for high-quality centralised care. Individuals were willing to travel 9 min more for a 1-day reduction in length of stay in the hospital, 38 min for a 1% reduction in risk of death and 112 min for having outpatient follow-up care at their local hospital. CONCLUSIONS:People value centralised EMS if it provides higher quality care and are willing to travel further and wait longer.
| S-EPMC6858184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Front-of-Package (FOP) labels highlight important nutrients and help consumers make informed decisions about food purchases. In this study, we investigated consumer comprehension, opinion, and preference associated with two different formats of FOP labels and compared consumer shopping behavior and general trends related to nutrition labeling. Consumer eye-tracking was used for measuring perceived understanding of nutritional information objectively. Results revealed that a color-coded FOP label would garner more attention than a black and white FOP label. Subjects found color-coded FOP labels more straightforward than black and white labels. Participants used the information provided on the FOP for shopping goals. Still, FOPs did not affect objective consumer attention to labels, and labeling schemes did not significantly affect participants' decisions. Participating subjects did use FOP labels instead of the nutrition facts panels. Still, FOP groups scored lower on a nutrition literacy quiz, indicating that their perceived and actual understanding of nutritional information differed. Our findings suggest that subjects pay attention to FOP labels but do not make decisions.
| S-EPMC8749384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The patient's perspective is becoming increasingly important in clinical and policy decisions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the preferences of patients with, or at risk of, osteoporosis for medication attributes, and to establish how patients trade between these attributes. METHODS:A discrete choice experiment survey was designed and patients were asked to choose between two hypothetical unlabelled drug treatments (and an opt-out option) that vary in five attributes: efficacy in reducing the risk of fracture, type of potential common side-effects, mode and frequency of administration and out-of-pocket costs. An efficient experimental design was used to construct the treatment option choice sets and a mixed logit panel data model was used to estimate patients' preferences and trade-offs between attributes. RESULTS:A total of 257 patients with, or at risk of, osteoporosis completed the experiment. As expected, patients preferred treatment with higher effectiveness and lower cost. They also preferred either an oral monthly tablet or 6-month subcutaneous injection above weekly oral tablets, 3-month subcutaneous, 3-month intravenous or yearly intravenous injections. Patients disliked being at risk of gastro-intestinal disorders more than being at risk of skin reactions and flu-like symptoms. There was significant variation in preferences across the sample for all attributes except subcutaneous injection. CONCLUSIONS:This study revealed that osteoporotic patients preferred 6-month subcutaneous injection and oral monthly tablet, and disliked gastro-intestinal disorders. Moreover, patients were willing to pay a personal contribution or to trade treatment efficacy for better levels of other attributes. Preferences for treatment attributes varied across patients and this highlights the importance of clinical decision-making taking individual preferences into account to improve osteoporosis care.
| S-EPMC3979104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPreventive measures are essential to limit the spread of new viruses; their uptake is key to their success. However, the vaccination uptake in pandemic outbreaks is often low. We aim to elicit how disease and vaccination characteristics determine preferences of the general public for new pandemic vaccinations.MethodsIn an internet-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) a representative sample of 536 participants (49% participation rate) from the Dutch population was asked for their preference for vaccination programs in hypothetical communicable disease outbreaks. We used scenarios based on two disease characteristics (susceptibility to and severity of the disease) and five vaccination program characteristics (effectiveness, safety, advice regarding vaccination, media attention, and out-of-pocket costs). The DCE design was based on a literature review, expert interviews and focus group discussions. A panel latent class logit model was used to estimate which trade-offs individuals were willing to make.ResultsAll above mentioned characteristics proved to influence respondents' preferences for vaccination. Preference heterogeneity was substantial. Females who stated that they were never in favor of vaccination made different trade-offs than males who stated that they were (possibly) willing to get vaccinated. As expected, respondents preferred and were willing to pay more for more effective vaccines, especially if the outbreak was more serious (€6-€39 for a 10% more effective vaccine). Changes in effectiveness, out-of-pocket costs and in the body that advises the vaccine all substantially influenced the predicted uptake.ConclusionsWe conclude that various disease and vaccination program characteristics influence respondents' preferences for pandemic vaccination programs. Agencies responsible for preventive measures during pandemics can use the knowledge that out-of-pocket costs and the way advice is given affect vaccination uptake to improve their plans for future pandemic outbreaks. The preference heterogeneity shows that information regarding vaccination needs to be targeted differently depending on gender and willingness to get vaccinated.
| S-EPMC4109921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used for health state valuations. However, the values derived from initial DCE studies vary widely. We hypothesize that these findings indicate the presence of unknown sources of bias that must be recognized and minimized. Against this background, we studied whether values derived from a DCE are sensitive to how well the DCE design spans the severity range.MethodsWe constructed an experiment involving three variants of DCE tasks for health state valuation: standard DCE, DCE-death, and DCE-duration. For each type of DCE, an experimental design was generated under two different conditions, enabling a comparison of health state values derived from current best practice Bayesian efficient DCE designs with values derived from 'severity-stratified' designs that control for coverage of the severity range in health state selection. About 3000 respondents participated in the study and were randomly assigned to one of the six study arms.ResultsImposing the severity-stratified restriction had a large effect on health states sampled for the DCE-duration approach. The unstratified efficient design returned a skewed distribution of selected health states, and this introduced bias. The choice probability of bad health states was underestimated, and time trade-offs to avoid bad states were overestimated, resulting in too low values. Imposing the same restriction had limited effect in the DCE-death approach and standard DCE.ConclusionVariation in DCE-derived values can be partially explained by differences in how well selected health states spanned the severity range. Imposing a 'severity stratification' on DCE-duration designs is a validity requirement.
| S-EPMC6182499 | biostudies-literature