18 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
The U.S. food and beverage industry recently released a new front-of-package nutrition labeling system called Facts Up Front that will be used on thousands of food products. The purpose of this study was to test consumer understanding of the Facts Up Front nutrition labeling system compared to the Multiple Traffic Light system (Traffic Light). Facts Up Front displays grams/milligrams and % daily value information for various nutrients; Traffic Light uses an interpretive color-coded scheme to alert consumers to low, medium or high levels of certain nutrients. Participants in an Internet-based study were randomized to one of five front-of-package label conditions: 1) No Label; 2) Traffic Light; 3) Traffic Light plus information about protein and fiber (Traffic Light+); 4) Facts Up Front; or 5) Facts Up Front plus information about "nutrients to encourage" (Facts Up Front+). Total percentage correct quiz scores were generated reflecting participants' ability to compare two foods on nutrient levels, based on their labels, and to estimate amounts of saturated fat, sugar, sodium, fiber and protein in foods. 703 adult participants recruited through an online database in May 2011 participated in this Internet-based study and data were analyzed in June 2011. The investigators hypothesized that the Traffic Light label groups would perform better than the Facts Up Front groups on all outcomes.
This study builds on the framework of a previously implemented color-coded food labeling intervention in a hospital cafeteria by testing the incremental effectiveness of providing employees with individual feedback and incentives for increasing healthy purchases in a 3-arm randomized controlled trial. The investigators hypothesize that employees assigned to receive feedback will increase healthy purchases more than employees who receive no contact and that employees who receive feedback plus incentives will increase healthy purchases more than those who receive feedback alone.
The investigators hypothesize that monetary incentives and messaging, such as making nutritious foods relatively less expensive than less nutritious foods and framing the price difference in a positive or negative way, will influence purchasing behavior of households.
The primary objective of this study is to test the relative effects of climate-impact menu label designs on the healthfulness of consumers' fast-food meal choices. Participants will complete hypothetical online meal ordering tasks using a survey which emulates the online menus of two types of fast-food chain restaurants: a burger restaurant and a sandwich restaurant. Participants will be randomized the view both menus, presented in random order, with one of five labeling conditions applied. Secondary objectives include examining total greenhouse gas emissions per meal order, energy and nutrient content of meals ordered, prices of meals ordered, and, through a post-order survey, noticeability, and perceptions, and knowledge and understanding of labels between the conditions.
The primary objective of this study is to test the relative effects of climate-impact menu label designs on the healthfulness of consumers' fast-food meal choices. Participants will complete a hypothetical online meal ordering task using a survey which emulates the online menu of a burger restaurant chain. Participants will be randomized for exposure to menus featuring one of five labeling conditions. Secondary objectives include examining total greenhouse gas emissions per meal order and, through a post-order survey, perception of labels between the conditions.
The aim of this study is to compare responses to 6 different types of labels for restaurant menus: 1) a QR code on all items (control); 2) High Climate Impact label; 3) High Climate Impact Warning label; 4) Climate Grade label; 5) Climate Grade label also displaying full range of possible grades; 6) Estimated Environmental Cost label. Participants will be randomized to 1 of these 6 labeling arms. Each participant will view a menu based on a real-world restaurant with one of the 6 labels shown on applicable menu items, select the menu item they would like, and then respond to survey questions about each label.
The goal of this this intervention is to test the degree to which a portion size labeling intervention influences consumer selection of smaller portions at two large cafés. The main question it aims to answer is: Do consumers order fewer calories when the portion size label for the smaller entree is called "standard" instead of "small"? Participants will order lunch as usual in the two cafes (one intervention, one control) for 5.5 months, and all order items will be recorded in the check-out system. One cafe will receive the labeling intervention, while the other will not. Researchers will compare the average calories per order between the two cafes to see if there are differences.
The aim of this study is to compare the impact of 4 different types of front of package (FOP) food and beverage messages: 1) green labels on healthy foods, 2) red/yellow/green labels on less healthy/moderately healthy/healthy foods, 3) physical activity calorie equivalent labels, and 4) posters reminding consumers of the sweetened beverage tax on consumers' beverage and snack selections.
The aim of this study is to compare responses to 5 different types of labels for restaurant menus: 1) Control (non-sustainability-label: neutral labels not referencing environmental sustainability); 2) Numeric text-only sustainability label; 3) Endorsement text-only sustainability label; 4) Endorsement icon-only sustainability label; 5) Endorsement text-plus-icon sustainability label. Participants will be randomized to 1 of the 5 labeling arms above. Each participant will view 3 labels (shown in random order) from their randomly assigned labeling arm and respond to survey questions about each label (e.g., attention, perceived effectiveness).
This online randomized clinical trial will test the effects of restaurant menu carbon footprint labels on consumers' choices and perceptions of restaurant menu items.
The aim of this study is to compare the impact of 5 different types of front of package (FOP) food and beverage labels: 1) calorie labels \[control\], 2) green labels on healthy foods, 3) red/yellow/green labels on less healthy/moderately healthy/healthy foods, 4) physical activity calorie equivalent labels, and 5) "High in" nutrient warning labels) on consumers' beverage and snack selections.
The aim of this study is to determine the degree to which sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) warning labels increase consumers' knowledge about the potential health harms of SSBs and reduce SSB purchases and consumption. 216 racially and ethnically diverse parents of children 6-11 years old will be recruited to buy snacks and beverages for four weeks via an online store that ships participants their purchases. Participants will be randomized to either 1) calorie labels (control); or 2) sugar graphic warning labels. The investigators hypothesize that sugar graphic warning labels displayed in an online store in weeks 2-4 will lead to the greatest reductions from week 1 across both primary outcomes compared to the control group that will only see calorie labels.
Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are a significant contributor to adult and childhood obesity. Policies to place health warning labels on sugar-sweetened beverages are being pursued, but there is little empirical data on how such labels influence people. The proposed research will evaluate the impact of different types of sugar-sweetened beverage warning labels relative to standard calorie labels on the purchasing and consumption behaviors of parents and children.
Obesity, unhealthy dietary habits, and food insecurity are major public health concerns, especially affecting individuals living in poverty. Food pantries, which provide free food to those in need, are increasingly interested in promoting healthy choices, but few rigorous studies have tested healthy eating interventions in food pantry settings. The overall objective of this proposal is to conduct a randomized-controlled trial among 500 regular food pantry clients to compare the influence of a behavioral economic intervention to promote healthier food choices delivered via a web-based ordering platform to usual care (control group).
The objective of the study is to validate a visual method of presenting nutritional information by determining if users of the visual method remember food properties better than users given the same information in a non-visual form with texts and tables.
A study examining menu choices made at fast food restaurants.
This study is a pilot evaluation of the Healthy Pantry Program, a new behavioral economics-based training that allows pantry staff to learn how to implement nudges integrating traffic-light nutrition labeling and a healthy recipe database in the pantry environment. The hypothesis is that participation the Healthy Pantry Program will lead to increases in pantry purchases of healthy foods.
This is the second in a series of pilot interventions we are conducting to assess how principles from behavioral economics can be applied to improve consumers' food choices. In collaboration with Aramark, the food service vendor, we intend to examine if calorie labeling in different formats impacts consumers choice of bottled beverages in hospital cafeterias. Specifically, we will be testing whether signage that conveys to consumers the number of calories in each bottled beverage will increase the number of zero-calorie beverages sold relative to non-zero-calorie beverages. Likewise, we will test whether signage that conveys calories in exercise equivalents increases the sale of zero-calorie beverages. Lastly, we will test if signage conveying standard calorie information in conjunction with exercise equivalents increases the sale of zero-calorie beverages. We will measure the differential effect of each of these three formats for calorie information.