Impact on wine sales of removing the largest serving size by the glass: An A-B-A reversal trial in 21 pubs, bars, and restaurants in England.

BACKGROUND: Interventions that alter aspects of the physical environments in which unhealthy behaviours occur have the potential to change behaviour at scale, i.e., across populations, and thereby decrease the risk of several diseases. One set of such interventions involves reducing serving sizes, which could reduce alcohol consumption. The effect of modifying the available range of serving sizes of wine in a real-world setting is unknown. We aimed to assess the impact on the volume of wine sold of removing the largest serving size by the glass from the options available in licensed premises. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study was conducted between September 2021 and May 2022 in 21 licensed premises in England that sold wine by the glass in serving sizes greater than 125 ml (i.e., 175 ml or 250 ml) and used an electronic point of sale till system. It used an A-B-A reversal design, set over 3 four-weekly periods. "A" represented the nonintervention periods during which standard serving sizes were served and "B" the intervention period when the largest serving size for a glass of wine was removed from the existing range in each establishment: 250 ml (18 premises) or 175 ml (3 premises). The primary outcome was the daily volume of wine sold, extracted from sales data. Twenty-one premises completed the study, 20 of which did so per protocol and were included in the primary analysis. After adjusting for prespecified covariates, the intervention resulted in -420·8 millilitres (ml) (95% confidence intervals (CIs) -681·4 to -160·2 p = 0·002) or -7·6% (95% CI -12·3%, -2·9%) less wine being sold per day. There was no evidence that sales of beer and cider or total daily revenues changed but the study was not powered to detect differences in these outcomes. The main study limitation is that we were unable to assess the sales of other alcoholic drinks apart from wine, beer, and cider, estimated to comprise approximately 30% of alcoholic drinks sold in participating premises. CONCLUSIONS: Removing the largest serving size of wine by the glass from those available reduced the volume of wine sold. This promising intervention for decreasing alcohol consumption across populations merits consideration as part of alcohol licensing regulations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN33169631; OSF https://osf.io/xkgdb.

Impact of health warning labels and calorie labels on selection and purchasing of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks: A randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To estimate the impact on selection and actual purchasing of (a) health warning labels (text-only and image-and-text) on alcoholic drinks and (b) calorie labels on alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. DESIGN: Parallel-groups randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Drinks were selected in a simulated online supermarket, before being purchased in an actual online supermarket. PARTICIPANTS: Adults in England and Wales who regularly consumed and purchased beer or wine online (n = 651). Six hundred and eight participants completed the study and were included in the primary analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to one of six groups in a between-subjects three [health warning labels (HWLs) (i): image-and-text HWL; (ii) text-only HWL; (iii) no HWL] × 2 (calorie labels: present versus absent) factorial design (n per group 103-113). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was the number of alcohol units selected (with intention to purchase); secondary outcomes included alcohol units purchased and calories selected and purchased. There was no time limit for selection. For purchasing, participants were directed to purchase their drinks immediately (although they were allowed up to 2 weeks to do so). FINDINGS: There was no evidence of main effects for either (a) HWLs or (b) calorie labels on the number of alcohol units selected (HWLs: F(2,599) = 0.406, P = 0.666; calorie labels: F(1,599) = 0.002, P = 0.961). There was also no evidence of an interaction between HWLs and calorie labels, and no evidence of an overall difference on any secondary outcomes. In pre-specified subgroup analyses comparing the 'calorie label only' group (n = 101) with the 'no label' group (n = 104) there was no evidence that calorie labels reduced the number of calories selected (unadjusted means: 1913 calories versus 2203, P = 0.643). Among the 75% of participants who went on to purchase drinks, those in the 'calorie label only' group (n = 74) purchased fewer calories than those in the 'no label' group (n = 79) (unadjusted means: 1532 versus 2090, P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that health warning labels reduced the number of alcohol units selected or purchased in an online retail context. There was some evidence suggesting that calorie labels on alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks may reduce calories purchased from both types of drinks.

Impact on sales of adding a smaller serving size of beer and cider in licensed premises: an A-B-A reversal design.

BACKGROUND: Smaller serving sizes of alcoholic drinks could reduce alcohol consumption across populations thereby lowering the risk of many diseases. The effect of modifying the available range of serving sizes of beer and cider in a real-world setting has yet to be studied. The current study assessed the impact on beer and cider sales of adding a serving size of draught beer and cider (2/3 pint) that was between the current smallest (1/2 pint) and largest (1 pint) standard serving sizes. METHODS: Twenty-two licensed premises in England consented to taking part in the study. The study used an ABA reversal design, set over three 4-weekly periods, with A representing the non-intervention periods, during which standard serving sizes were served and B the intervention period when a 2/3 pint serving size of draught beer and cider was added to the existing range, along with smaller 1/2 pint and larger 1 pint serving sizes. The primary outcome was the daily volume of beer and cider sold, extracted from sales data. RESULTS: Fourteen premises started the study, of which thirteen completed it. Twelve of those did so per protocol and were included in the primary analysis. After adjusting for pre-specified covariates, the intervention did not have a significant effect on the volume of beer and cider sold per day (3.14 ml; 95%CIs -2.29 to 8.58; p = 0.257). CONCLUSIONS: In licensed premises, there was no evidence that adding a smaller serving size for draught beer and cider (2/3 pint) when the smallest (1/2 pint) and largest (1 pint) sizes were still available, affected the volume of beer and cider sold. Studies are warranted to assess the impact of removing the largest serving size. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN33169631 (08/09/2021), OSF: https://osf.io/xkgdb/ (08/09/2021).

Impact on alcohol selection and online purchasing of changing the proportion of available non-alcoholic versus alcoholic drinks: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the availability of non-alcoholic options is a promising population-level intervention to reduce alcohol consumption, currently unassessed in naturalistic settings. This study in an online retail context aimed to estimate the impact of increasing the proportion of non-alcoholic (relative to alcoholic) drinks, on selection and purchasing of alcohol. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adults (n = 737) residing in England and Wales who regularly purchased alcohol online were recruited between March and July 2021. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: "25% non-alcoholic/75% alcoholic"; "50% non-alcoholic/50% alcoholic"; and "75% non-alcoholic/25% alcoholic," then selected drinks in a simulated online supermarket, before purchasing them in an actual online supermarket. The primary outcome was the number of alcohol units selected (with intention to purchase); secondary outcomes included actual purchasing. A total of 607 participants (60% female, mean age = 38 years [range: 18 to 76]) completed the study and were included in the primary analysis. In the first part of a hurdle model, a greater proportion of participants in the "75% non-alcoholic" group did not select any alcohol (13.1%) compared to the "25% non-alcoholic" group (3.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.09, -0.63; p < 0.001). There was no evidence of a difference between the "75% non-alcoholic" and the "50% non-alcoholic" (7.2%) groups (95% CI 0.10, 1.34; p = 0.022) or between the "50% non-alcoholic" and the "25% non-alcoholic" groups (95% CI -1.44, 0.17; p = 0.121). In the second part of a hurdle model in participants (559/607) selecting any drinks containing alcohol, the "75% non-alcoholic" group selected fewer alcohol units compared to the "50% non-alcoholic" (95% CI -0.44, -0.14; p < 0.001) and "25% non-alcoholic" (95% CI -0.54, -0.24; p < 0.001) groups, with no evidence of a difference between the "50% non-alcoholic" and "25% non-alcoholic" groups (95% CI -0.24, 0.05; p = 0.178). Overall, across all participants, 17.46 units (95% CI 15.24, 19.68) were selected in the "75% non-alcoholic" group; 25.51 units (95% CI 22.60, 28.43) in the "50% non-alcoholic" group; and 29.40 units (95% CI 26.39, 32.42) in the "25% non-alcoholic" group. This corresponds to 8.1 fewer units (a 32% reduction) in the "75% non-alcoholic" compared to the "50% non-alcoholic" group, and 11.9 fewer alcohol units (41% reduction) compared to the "25% non-alcoholic" group; 3.9 fewer units (13% reduction) were selected in the "50% non-alcoholic" group than in the "25% non-alcoholic" group. For all other outcomes, alcohol selection and purchasing were consistently lowest in the "75% non-alcoholic" group. Study limitations include the setting not being entirely naturalistic due to using a simulated online supermarket as well as an actual online supermarket, and that there was substantial dropout between selection and purchasing. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that substantially increasing the proportion of non-alcoholic drinks-from 25% to 50% or 75%-meaningfully reduces alcohol selection and purchasing. Further studies are warranted to assess whether these effects are realised in a range of real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 11004483; OSF: https://osf.io/qfupw.

Impact of e-cigarette retail displays on attitudes to smoking and vaping in children: an online experimental study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) retail display exposure on attitudes to smoking and vaping (susceptibility to tobacco smoking and using e-cigarettes, and perceptions of the harms of smoking and e-cigarette use). DESIGN: Between-subjects randomised experiment using a 2 (e-cigarette retail display visibility: high vs low)×2 (proportion of e-cigarette images: 75% vs 25%) factorial design. SETTING: Online via the Qualtrics survey platform. PARTICIPANTS: UK children aged 13-17 years (n=1034), recruited through a research agency. INTERVENTION: Participants viewed 12 images of retail displays that contained e-cigarette display images or unrelated product images. E-cigarette display images were either high or low visibility, based on a conspicuousness score. Participants were randomised to one of four groups, with e-cigarette display visibility and proportion of e-cigarette images, compared with images of unrelated products, manipulated: (1) 75% e-cigarettes, high visibility; (2) 25% e-cigarettes, high visibility; (3) 75% e-cigarettes, low visibility; (4) 25% e-cigarettes, low visibility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was susceptibility to smoking (among never smokers only). Secondary outcomes were susceptibility to using e-cigarettes (among never vapers only), and perceptions of smoking and e-cigarette harm (all participants). RESULTS: Neither e-cigarette retail display visibility, nor the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed, appeared to influence susceptibility to smoking (visibility: OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.13, p=0.24; proportion: OR=1.34, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82, p=0.054 (reference: low visibility, not susceptible)).Planned subgroup analyses indicated that exposure to a higher proportion of e-cigarette images increased susceptibility to smoking among children who visited retail stores more regularly (n=524, OR=1.59, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.43, p=0.034), and those who passed the attention check (n=880, OR=1.43, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.98, p=0.031).In addition, neither e-cigarette retail display visibility nor the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed, appeared to influence susceptibility to using e-cigarettes (visibility: OR=1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.43, p=0.65; proportion: OR=1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64, p=0.18).Greater visibility of e-cigarette retail displays reduced perceived harm of smoking (mean difference (MD)=-0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.04, p=0.016). There was no evidence that the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed had an effect (MD=-0.07, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.09, p=0.40).Perceived harm of e-cigarette use did not appear to be affected by e-cigarette retail display visibility (MD=-0.12, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.05, p=0.16) or by the proportion of e-cigarette images displayed (MD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.07, p=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence in the full sample to suggest that children's susceptibility to smoking is increased by exposure to higher visibility e-cigarette retail displays, or to a higher proportion of e-cigarette images. However, for regular store visitors or those paying more attention, viewing a higher proportion of e-cigarette images increased susceptibility to smoking. In addition, viewing higher visibility e-cigarette images reduced perceived harm of smoking. A review of the current regulatory discrepancy between tobacco and e-cigarette point-of-sale marketing is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18215632.

Cigarette pack size and consumption: a randomized cross-over trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smoking fewer cigarettes per day may increase the chances of stopping smoking. Capping the number of cigarettes per pack is a promising policy option, but the causal impact of such a change is unknown. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that lowering cigarette pack sizes from 25 to 20 reduces the number of cigarettes smoked. DESIGN: This randomized controlled cross-over trial had two 14-day intervention periods with an intervening 7-day period of usual behaviour. Participants purchased their own cigarettes. They were instructed to smoke their usual brand from either one of two sizes of pack in each of two 14-day intervention periods: (a) 25 cigarettes and (b) 20 cigarettes. Participants were randomized to the order in which they smoked from the two pack sizes (a-b; b-a). SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adult smokers who smoked from pack sizes of 25, recruited between July 2020 and June 2021. Of 252 randomized, 240 (95%) completed the study and 236 (94%) provided sufficient data for the primary analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Cigarettes smoked per participant per day. FINDINGS: Participants smoked fewer cigarettes per day from packs of 20 cigarettes [n = 234, mean = 15.7 standard deviation (SD) = 7.1] than from packs of 25 (n = 235, mean = 16.9, SD = 7.1). After adjusting for pre-specified covariates (baseline consumption and heaviness of smoking), modelling estimated that participants smoked 1.3 fewer cigarettes per day [95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.7 to -0.9], equivalent to 7.6% fewer (95% CI = -10.1 to -5.2%) from packs of 20 cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking from packs of 20 compared with 25 cigarettes reduced the number of cigarettes smoked per day.

Acceptability of policies to reduce consumption of red and processed meat: A population-based survey experiment.

Policies to reduce meat consumption are needed to help achieve climate change targets, and could also improve population health. Public acceptability can affect the likelihood of policy implementation. This study estimated the acceptability of policies to reduce red and processed meat consumption, and whether acceptability differed when policies were framed as benefitting health or the environment. In an online experiment, 2215 UK adults rated the acceptability of six policies, presented in a randomised order. Prior to rating policies, participants were randomised to one of two framing conditions, with policy outcomes described either as benefitting health or the environment. Regression models examined differences in the primary outcome - policy acceptability (rated on a 7-point scale) - by framing. Labels were the most accepted policy (48% support), followed by a media campaign (45%), reduced availability (40%) and providing incentives (38%). Increasing price (27%) and banning advertising (26%) were the least accepted. A substantial proportion of participants neither supported nor opposed most policies (26-33%), although this fell to 16% for increasing price. There was no evidence that framing policy benefits from a health or environment perspective influenced acceptability (-0.06, 95%CIs: 0.18,0.07). Fewer than half of the UK sample expressed support for any of six policies to reduce meat consumption, regardless of framing measures as benefitting health or the environment. Conversely, fewer than half expressed opposition, with the exception of price, suggesting considerable scope to influence public opinion in support of meat reduction measures to meet environmental and health goals.

Evaluation of physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels' impact on energy purchased in cafeterias: A stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis suggested that using physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels results in people selecting and consuming less energy. However, the meta-analysis included only 1 study in a naturalistic setting, conducted in 4 convenience stores. We therefore aimed to estimate the effect of PACE labels on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias in the context of a randomised study design. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to investigate the effect of PACE labels (which include kcal content and minutes of walking required to expend the energy content of the labelled food) on energy purchased. The setting was 10 worksite cafeterias in England, which were randomised to the order in which they introduced PACE labels on selected food and drinks following a baseline period. There were approximately 19,000 workers employed at the sites, 72% male, with an average age of 40. The study ran for 12 weeks (06 April 2021 to 28 June 2021) with over 250,000 transactions recorded on electronic tills. The primary outcome was total energy (kcal) purchased from intervention items per day. The secondary outcomes were: energy purchased from non-intervention items per day, total energy purchased per day, and revenue. Regression models showed no evidence of an overall effect on energy purchased from intervention items, -1,934 kcals per site per day (95% CI -5,131 to 1,262), p = 0.236, during the intervention relative to baseline, equivalent to -5 kcals per transaction (95% CI -14 to 4). There was also no evidence for an effect on energy purchased from non-intervention items, -5 kcals per site per day (95% CI -513 to 504), p = 0.986, equivalent to 0 kcals per transaction (95% CI -1 to 1), and no clear evidence for total energy purchased -2,899 kcals per site (95% CI -5,810 to 11), p = 0.051, equivalent to -8 kcals per transaction (95% CI -16 to 0). Study limitations include using energy purchased and not energy consumed as the primary outcome and access only to transaction-level sales, rather than individual-level data. CONCLUSION: Overall, the evidence was consistent with PACE labels not changing energy purchased in worksite cafeterias. There was considerable variation in effects between cafeterias, suggesting important unmeasured moderators. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered on ISRCTN (date: 30.03.21; ISRCTN31315776).

Impact of Sizes of Servings, Glasses and Bottles on Alcohol Consumption: A Narrative Review.

This review summarises the evidence on the impact of serving and container size on how much people drink, interventions that have the potential to reduce alcohol consumption across populations, thereby improving health. A rapid search identified 10 published reports of 15 studies and 1 review. Four studies focused on serving size, eight studies and the review on glass size, two studies on bottle size and one on both glass and bottle size. Twelve studies and the review focused on wine, one study on beer and two on both. All were conducted in England, by just two research groups. Removing the largest serving size of wine decreased wine sales by 7.6% (95% CI -12.3%, -2.9%) in a study in 21 licenced premises, reflecting findings from two prior studies in semi-naturalistic settings. Adding a serving size for beer that was a size smaller than the largest was assessed in one study in 13 licenced premises, with no evident effect. Reducing the size of wine glasses in restaurants decreased wine sales by 7.3% (95% CI -13.5%, -1.5%) in a mega-analysis of eight datasets from studies in five licensed premises. Using smaller wine glasses at home may also reduce consumption, but the evidence from just one study is less certain. No studies have assessed the impact of glass size for drinking beer. The effect of bottles smaller than the standard 750 mL on wine consumed at home was assessed in two studies: 500 mL bottles reduced consumption by 4.5% (95% CI -7.9%, -1.0%) in one study, but in another, using 375 mL bottles there was no evident effect. No studies assessed the impact of bottle or other container size for drinking beer. Reducing the size of servings, glasses and bottles could reduce wine consumption across populations. The impact of similar interventions for reducing consumption of other alcoholic drinks awaits evaluation. Further studies are also warranted to assess the generalisability of existing evidence.

Is altering the availability of healthier vs. less-healthy options effective across socioeconomic groups? A mega-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Availability 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. METHODS: Individual-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. RESULTS: Participants 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. CONCLUSION: Increasing 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.

Impact of wine bottle and glass sizes on wine consumption at home: a within- and between- households randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Reducing alcohol consumption across populations would decrease the risk of a range of diseases, including many cancers, cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. The aim of the current study was to estimate the impact of using smaller bottles (37.5- versus 75-cl) and glasses (290 versus 370 ml) on consuming wine at home. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of households with cross-over randomization to bottle size and parallel randomization to glass size. SETTING: UK households. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 260 households consuming at least two 75-cl bottles of wine each week, recruited from the general population through a research agency. The majority consisted of adults who were white and of higher socio-economic position. INTERVENTION: Households were randomized to the order in which they purchased wine in 37.5- or 75-cl bottles, to consume during two 14-day intervention periods, and further randomized to receive smaller (290 ml) or larger (350 ml) glasses to use during both intervention periods. MEASUREMENTS: Volume (ml) of study wine consumed at the end of each 14-day intervention period, measured using photographs of purchased bottles, weighed on study scales. FINDINGS: Of the randomized households, 217 of 260 (83%) completed the study as per protocol and were included in the primary analysis. There was weak evidence that smaller bottles reduced consumption: after accounting for pre-specified covariates, households consumed on average 145.7 ml (3.6%) less wine when drinking from smaller bottles than from larger bottles [95% confidence intervals (CI) = -335.5 to 43. ml; -8.3 to 1.1%; P = 0.137; Bayes factor (BF) = 2.00]. The evidence for the effect of smaller glasses was stronger: households consumed on average 253.3 ml (6.5%) less wine when drinking from smaller glasses than from larger glasses (95% CI = -517 to 10 ml; -13.2 to 0.3%; P = 0.065; BF = 2.96). CONCLUSIONS: Using smaller glasses to drink wine at home may reduce consumption. Greater uncertainty remains around the possible effect of drinking from smaller bottles.

Explaining the effect on food selection of altering availability: two experimental studies on the role of relative preferences.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the availability of healthier or plant-based foods increases their selection. The current studies aimed to examine the extent to which relative preferences account for food selections following availability interventions. In particular, (a) whether increasing the availability of lower-energy options increases the likelihood that individuals' highest-ranked option is lower-energy, and (b) the extent to which selections reflect individuals' highest-ranked option from the available range. METHODS: UK adults (Study 1: n = 1976; Study 2: n = 1078) took part in within-subjects online studies. In both studies, the order of preference between food options was established by participants choosing the option that they would prefer "to eat right now" from every possible pairing within a pool of eight options. Then, participants were shown either predominantly higher-energy options (three higher- and one lower-energy) or predominantly lower-energy options (vice versa), presented in a random order. RESULTS: When predominantly lower-energy options were presented, the odds of the highest-ranked option being a lower-energy option increased ten-fold (Study 1: odds ratio: 10.1; 95%CI: 8.9,11.4; Study 2: odds ratio: 10.4; 95%CI: 7.4,14.7), compared to when predominantly higher-energy options were available. In both studies, around 90% of selections reflected the highest-ranked option in the range offered in the studied availability conditions (range 88-92%). CONCLUSIONS: These studies suggest that increased availability of lower-energy options increases the likelihood of an individual's highest-ranked option being lower-energy, and that the highest-ranked option has the greatest likelihood of selection. As such, preferences may be a key contributor to the effects of altering availability on food selections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN27598623 ; 3/12/19 [Study 1]; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN61010183 ; 20/4/20 [Study 2]).

Effect of health warning labels on motivation towards energy-dense snack foods: Two experimental studies.

Health warning labels (HWLs) show promise in reducing motivation towards energy-dense snack foods. Understanding the underlying mechanisms could optimise their effectiveness. In two experimental studies in general population samples (Study 1 n = 90; Study 2 n = 1382), we compared the effects of HWLs and irrelevant aversive labels (IALs) on implicit (approach) motivation towards unhealthy snacks, using an approach-avoidance task (Study 1), and a manikin task (Study 2). We also assessed explicit motivation towards unhealthy snacks using food selection tasks. We examined whether labelling effects on motivation arose from the creation of outcome-dependent associations between the food and its health consequences or from simple, non-specific aversive associations. Both label types reduced motivation towards snack foods but only when the label was physically present. HWLs and IALs showed similar effects on implicit motivation, although HWLs reduced explicit motivation more than IALs. Thus, aversive HWLs appear to act both through low level associative mechanisms affecting implicit motivation, and by additionally emphasizing explicit causal links to health outcomes thereby affecting explicitly motivated choice behaviours.

Impact of residual risk messaging to reduce false reassurance following test-negative results from asymptomatic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing: an online experimental study of a hypothetical test.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals who receive a negative lateral flow coronavirus test result may misunderstand it as meaning 'no risk of infectiousness', giving false reassurance. This experiment tested the impact of adding information to negative test result messages about residual risk and the need to continue protective behaviours. DESIGN: 4 (residual risk) × 2 (post-test result behaviours) between-subjects design. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: 1200 adults from a representative UK sample recruited via Prolific (12-15 March 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of eight messages. Residual risk messages were: (1) 'Your coronavirus test result is negative' (control); (2) message 1 plus 'It's likely you were not infectious when the test was done' (current NHS Test & Trace (T&T); (3) message 2 plus 'But there is still a chance you may be infectious' (elaborated NHS T&T); and (4) message 3 plus infographic depicting residual risk (elaborated NHS T&T+infographic). Each message contained either no additional information or information about the need to continue following guidelines and protective behaviours. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Proportion understanding residual risk of infectiousness and (2) likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours (scales 1-7). RESULTS: The control message decreased understanding relative to the current NHS T&T message: 54% versus 71% (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=0.56 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95, p=0.030). Understanding increased with the elaborated NHS T&T (89%; AOR=3.25 95% CI 1.64 to 6.42, p=0.001) and elaborated NHS T&T+infographic (91%; AOR=5.16 95% CI 2.47 to 10.82, p<0.001) compared with current NHS T&T message. Likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours was unaffected by information (AOR=1.11 95% CI 0.69 to 1.80, χ2(1)=0.18, p=0.669), being high (M=6.4, SD=0.9) across the sample. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of participants misunderstood the residual risk following a negative test result. The addition of a single sentence ('But there is still a chance you may be infectious') to current NHS T&T wording increased understanding of residual risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF: https://osf.io/byfz3/.

Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits.

BACKGROUND: Effective interventions for reducing the consumption of products that harm population and planetary health often lack public support, impeding implementation. Communicating evidence of policies' effectiveness can increase public support but there is uncertainty about the most effective ways of communicating this evidence. Some policies have multiple benefits such as both improving health and the environment. This study assesses whether communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits of a policy increases its support. METHOD: Participants (n = 4616) nationally representative of the British population were randomised to one of 24 groups in an online experiment with a 4 × 3 × 2 between-subjects factorial design. The messages that participants viewed differed according to the evidence they communicated (no message, effectiveness for changing behaviour, effectiveness for changing behaviour + one policy benefit, effectiveness for changing behaviour + three policy benefits), type of policy (taxation, availability) and the target behaviour (consumption of energy-dense food, alcohol, or meat). The primary outcome was policy support. RESULTS: In a full factorial ANOVA, there was a significant main effect of communicating evidence of effectiveness on policy support, which was similar across policies and behaviours. Communicating three benefits increased support relative to communicating one benefit (d = 0.15; p = 0.01). Communicating one benefit increased support compared to providing evidence for changing behaviour alone (d = 0.13; p = 0.004) or no message (d = 0.11 p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Communicating evidence of a policy's benefits increases support for policy action across different behaviours and policies. Presenting multiple benefits of policies enhances public support.

Electronic cigarette and smoking paraphernalia point of sale displays: an observational study in England.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco point of sale (POS) retail displays are banned in many countries, including in England, due in part to evidence linking them to greater susceptibility to smoking in children. There is no equivalent ban on displays of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or smoking paraphernalia (eg, cigarette lighters) in England, which are often positioned alongside covered tobacco storage units. This observational study describes the visibility and placement of e-cigarette and smoking paraphernalia POS displays in major tobacco retailers in two cities in England to inform future research examining their possible links to susceptibility to tobacco smoking, particularly in children. METHODS: Researchers visited all small- and large-format stores of four supermarket chains and a randomly selected sample of convenience stores, in Bristol and Cambridge. A standardised checklist was used to create a total visibility score for POS displays of (a) e-cigarettes and (b) smoking paraphernalia, plus other measures of visibility and placement. These were described for the total sample and compared between areas of low, medium, and high deprivation using general linear models adjusting for store location and store type. RESULTS: The visibility checklist was completed in 133 of 166 stores (80% completion rate). Both e-cigarette and smoking paraphernalia POS displays were present in 96% of stores. POS displays were highly visible across all stores: mean (SD) total visibility scores, out of 17, were 14.7 (1.8) for e-cigarettes and 12.7 (1.8) for smoking paraphernalia. There was no clear evidence of differences in visibility by area of deprivation. CONCLUSION: E-cigarette and smoking paraphernalia POS displays are near ubiquitous and highly visible in major tobacco retailers in two cities in England. The impact of these displays on tobacco smoking in children and adults is unknown, meriting urgent research to assess their effect on susceptibility to tobacco smoking in children.

Glassware design and drinking behaviours: a review of impact and mechanisms using a new typology of drinking behaviours.

Much of the global burden of disease is attributable to unhealthy behaviour, including excessive consumption of alcohol and sugar-sweetened beverages. Developing effective methods to change these drinking behaviours could inform policies to improve population health. In line with an increasing interest in environmental-level interventions - i.e., changing the environment in which a behaviour occurs in order to change the behaviour of interest - this review first describes the existing evidence of the impact of glassware design (including capacity and shape) on drinking behaviours (e.g., at the 'micro' level - including sip size, as well as at the macro level - including amount consumed). The roles of two sets of possible underlying mechanisms - perception and affordance - are also explored. Finally, this review sets out a provisional typology of drinking behaviours to enable more systematic approaches to the study of these behaviours. While there is a paucity of evidence - in particular on measures of consumption - this growing evidence base suggests promising targets for novel interventions involving glassware design to reduce the consumption of drinks that harm health.Trial registration: ISRCTN.org identifier: ISRCTN10456720.