Trial reportBMC medicine2024
Are Dutch adults equally susceptible to nudging and pricing strategies? Secondary analyses of the Supreme Nudge parallel cluster-randomised controlled supermarket trial.
Trial report in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSupermarket interventions are promising to promote healthier dietary patterns, but not all individuals may be equally susceptible. We explored whether the effectiveness of nudging and pricing strategies on diet quality differs by psychological and grocery shopping characteristics.
methodsWe used data of the 12-month Supreme Nudge parallel cluster-randomised controlled supermarket trial, testing nudging and pricing strategies to promote healthier diets. Participants were Dutch speaking adults aged 30-80 years and regular shoppers of participating supermarkets (n = 12) in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Data on psychological characteristics (food-related behaviours; price sensitivity; food decision styles; social cognitive factors; self-control) and grocery shopping characteristics (time spent in the supermarket; moment of the day; average supermarket visits; shopping at other retailers; supermarket proximity) were self-reported at baseline. These characteristics were tested for their moderating effects of the intervention on diet quality (scored 0-150) in linear mixed models.
resultsWe included 162 participants from intervention supermarkets and 199 from control supermarkets (73% female, 58 (± 10.8) years old, 42% highly educated). The interventions had no overall effect on diet quality. Only five out of 23 potential moderators were statistically significant. Yet, stratified analyses of these significant moderators showed no significant effects on diet quality for one of the subgroups and statistically non-significant negative effects for the other. Negative effects were suggested for individuals with lower baseline levels of meal planning (β - 2.6, 95% CI - 5.9; 0.8), healthy shopping convenience (β - 3.0, 95% CI - 7.2; 1.3), and healthy food attractiveness (β - 3.5, 95% CI - 8.3; 1.3), and with higher levels of price consciousness (β - 2.6, 95% CI - 6.2; 1.0) and weekly supermarket visits (β - 2.4, 95% CI - 6.8; 1.9).
conclusionsAdults with varying psychological and grocery shopping characteristics largely seem equally (un)susceptible to nudging and pricing strategies. It might be that certain characteristics lead to adverse effects, but this is not plausible, and the observed negative effects were small and statistically non-significant and may be explained by chance findings. Verification of these findings is needed in real-world trials based on larger sample sizes and with the use of more comprehensive interventions.
trial registrationDutch Trial Register ID NL7064, 30th of May, 2018, https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/20990.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.