首页> 外文期刊>BMC Public Health >Randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of within versus across-category front-of-package lower-calorie labelling on food demand
【24h】

Randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of within versus across-category front-of-package lower-calorie labelling on food demand

机译:随机试验评估在粮食需求上的各种包装中的跨度型号的效果

获取原文
           

摘要

BACKGROUND:Several front-of-pack (FOP) labels identify healthier options by comparing foods within product categories. Alternative approaches label healthier options by comparing across categories. Which approach is superior remains unknown. The objective of this study was to test the effect of a within-category versus across-category FOP lower calorie label on 1) the percentage of labeled products purchased, 2) several measures of calories purchased (total, per dollar and per serving), and 3) total spending. We also tested the moderating effects of hunger and mood on purchasing patterns.METHODS:Using an online grocery store, we conducted a 3?×?3 crossover trial involving actual purchases with 146 participants randomly exposed to: 1) no labeling control; 2) within-category lower calorie labels, and; 3) across-category lower calorie labels. We labeled the 20% of products with the lowest calories per serving within or across categories. Purchases were compared using a fixed effects regression on first-differenced outcomes.RESULTS:Relative to the control condition, there was a 3 percentage point increase (p?=?0.01) in labelled products purchased in the within-category arm and a non-significant decrease of 1 percentage point (p?=?0.711) in the across-category arm. There was no significant difference in the proportion of labeled products purchased between the two labelling conditions. Neither strategy resulted in reductions in any measure of calories purchased or in total spending. When limited to beverages, there was a 398?cal reduction (p?=?0.01) in the within-category arm and a 438?cal reduction (p??0.01) in the across-category arm versus the control. Mood and hunger did not modify the effects for either strategy.CONCLUSIONS:Results provide evidence that both labelling strategies have the potential to influence food purchasing patterns. However, we cannot definitely state that one labelling approach is superior or even that an increase in the proportion of labelled products purchased will lead to a reduction in calories purchased.TRIAL REGISTRATION:The American Economic Association's registry for randomized controlled trials, RCT ID: AEARCTR-0002325; Prospectively Registered October 06, 2017. In compliance with ICMJE policy, the trial was also registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, RCT ID: [NCT04165447]. Retrospectively Registered 11 November 2019.
机译:背景:几个包装(FOP)标签通过比较产品类别内的食物来确定更健康的选择。替代方法通过与类别进行比较来解决更健康的选择。哪种方法优越仍然是未知的。本研究的目的是测试一类内部与类别FOP低级卡路里标签的效果1)所购买的标签产品的百分比,2)购买的热量措施(总,每美元和每份), 3)总支出。我们还测试了饥饿和心情对购买模式的调节效果。方法:使用在线杂货店,我们进行了3?×3 3次交叉试验,其中有146名与会者随机接触到:1)没有标签控制; 2)在类别内的较低卡路里标签和; 3)跨处类别的较低卡路里标签。我们将20%的产品标记为每种在类别内或跨各个类别的最低卡路里的产品。使用第一差异结果的固定效应回归进行比较。结果:相对于控制条件,在类别臂内购买的标记产品中有3个百分点(p?= 0.01)在跨类臂中的1个百分点(p?= 0.711)显着降低。在两个标签条件下购买的标记产品比例没有显着差异。两种策略都没有导致任何购买卡路里或总支出的衡量标准。当限于饮料时,在类别臂内有398?CAL减少(P?= 0.01),在跨类臂中的438克拉(P?<0.01)与控制。情绪和饥饿没有修改任何策略的效果。结论:结果提供了证据表明,标签策略都有可能影响食物购买模式。然而,我们绝对不能说明一种标签方法优越甚至是所购买的标签产品比例的增加将导致购买卡路里的减少.Tial注册:美国经济协会的随机对照试验的登记,RCT ID:AeArctr -0002325;预期注册2017年10月06日。根据ICMJE政策,审判还在ClincinalTrials.gov,RCT ID上注册:[NCT04165447]。回顾性注册2019年11月11日。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号