Trial reportAppetite2026
Combining positioning and labelling interventions for healthier and more environmentally sustainable products: A randomised controlled trial in an online experimental supermarket.
Trial report in Appetite, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Population diets need to become healthier and more sustainable to limit their negative effects on health and environment. This study assessed the effect of a positioning intervention, in isolation and in combination with a labelling intervention, on the a) healthiness and b) environmental sustainability of food choices in an experimental online supermarket. Participants (n = 2220) were randomly assigned to one of five trials groups (control; healthier items shown earlier ("health position"); health position & nutri-score labels; environmentally sustainable products shown earlier ("eco position"); eco position & ecolabels) and completed a shopping task in an experimental online supermarket. Linear regressions showed that compared to control, mean scaled nutri-scores of shopping baskets were significantly lower (healthier) for health position (-2.30; 95 %CI: -3.07, -1.52) and health position & labels (-2.50; 95 %CI: -3.28, -1.72), with no significant difference between health position and health position & labels (-0.20; 95 %CI: -0.66, 0.25). The mean eco scores of shopping baskets were significantly reduced (more sustainable) for eco position (-24 %; 95 %CIs: -15 %, -31 %) and eco position & labels (-30 %; 95 % CIs: -22 %, 37 %) compared to control. The eco position & labels group had significantly lower mean eco scores (-8 %; 95 % CIs: -2 %, -14 %) compared to eco position. The positioning intervention improved health and environmental sustainability of food selections in an experimental online supermarket, with less robust evidence for a small additional effect of adding labels. There was no suggestion that adding labels that potentially make the positioning intervention more salient had any backfire effects.
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.