Effects of front-of-package nutrition labelling systems on objective understanding and purchase intention in Panama: results from a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Public Health Nutrition Pub Date : 2024-05-16 DOI:10.1017/S1368980024001009
Fabio da Silva Gomes, Israel Ríos-Castillo, Leon Ramon Leal Correa, Bethy Cruzado, Gastón Ares, Carlos Felipe Urquizar Rojas, Elka González-Madden, Jorge Victoria
{"title":"Effects of front-of-package nutrition labelling systems on objective understanding and purchase intention in Panama: results from a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Fabio da Silva Gomes, Israel Ríos-Castillo, Leon Ramon Leal Correa, Bethy Cruzado, Gastón Ares, Carlos Felipe Urquizar Rojas, Elka González-Madden, Jorge Victoria","doi":"10.1017/S1368980024001009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the effect of different front-of-package (FOPL) schemes on the objective understanding of the nutritional content and intention to purchase products, in Panama.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Single-blinded multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Supermarkets across Panama. Participants were exposed to two-dimensional images of 15 mock-up products presented at random and balanced orders. Participants assigned to the intervention groups were exposed to mock-ups featuring one FOPL scheme: black octagonal warning labels (OWL), traffic-light labelling (TFL), or guideline daily amounts (GDA). Control group was not exposed to any FOPL scheme.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adult supermarket shoppers (n=1200). Participants were blinded to group assignment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Similar number of participants were randomised to and analysed in each group: OWL (n=300), TFL (n=300), GDA (n=300), and control (n=300). The odds for choosing to purchase the least harmful or none of the options more often was the highest in the OWL group. Compared to the control group, two times higher in the OWL group (OR 2·13, 95% confidence interval 1·60-2·84), and 57% higher in the TFL (1·57, 1·40-2·56), with no changes in the GDA (0·97, 0·73-1·29). OWL also resulted in the highest odds for correctly identifying the least harmful option, and for correctly identifying a product with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium and/or saturated fats.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>OWL performed best in helping shoppers to correctly identify when a product contained excessive amounts of nutrients of concern, to correctly identify the least harmful option, and to decide to purchase the least harmful or none of the options, more often.</p>","PeriodicalId":20951,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Nutrition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effect of different front-of-package (FOPL) schemes on the objective understanding of the nutritional content and intention to purchase products, in Panama.

Design: Single-blinded multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Supermarkets across Panama. Participants were exposed to two-dimensional images of 15 mock-up products presented at random and balanced orders. Participants assigned to the intervention groups were exposed to mock-ups featuring one FOPL scheme: black octagonal warning labels (OWL), traffic-light labelling (TFL), or guideline daily amounts (GDA). Control group was not exposed to any FOPL scheme.

Participants: Adult supermarket shoppers (n=1200). Participants were blinded to group assignment.

Results: Similar number of participants were randomised to and analysed in each group: OWL (n=300), TFL (n=300), GDA (n=300), and control (n=300). The odds for choosing to purchase the least harmful or none of the options more often was the highest in the OWL group. Compared to the control group, two times higher in the OWL group (OR 2·13, 95% confidence interval 1·60-2·84), and 57% higher in the TFL (1·57, 1·40-2·56), with no changes in the GDA (0·97, 0·73-1·29). OWL also resulted in the highest odds for correctly identifying the least harmful option, and for correctly identifying a product with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium and/or saturated fats.

Conclusions: OWL performed best in helping shoppers to correctly identify when a product contained excessive amounts of nutrients of concern, to correctly identify the least harmful option, and to decide to purchase the least harmful or none of the options, more often.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在巴拿马,包装前营养标签系统对客观理解和购买意向的影响:多臂平行组随机对照试验的结果。
目的在巴拿马,评估不同的包装正面(FOPL)方案对客观了解产品营养成分和购买意向的影响:设计:单盲多臂平行组随机对照试验:环境:巴拿马各地的超市。参与者会看到 15 种模拟产品的二维图像,这些图像以随机和均衡的顺序呈现。被分配到干预组的受试者会看到具有一种FOPL方案的模拟产品:黑色八角形警告标签(OWL)、交通灯标签(TFL)或每日指导用量(GDA)。对照组不接触任何食品标签方案:成年超市购物者(1200 人)。结果:每组随机分配和分析的参与者人数相近:结果:每组的随机人数和分析人数相似:OWL 组(人数=300)、TFL 组(人数=300)、GDA 组(人数=300)和对照组(人数=300)。在 OWL 组中,选择购买危害最小的选项或不购买任何选项的几率最高。与对照组相比,OWL 组高出 2 倍(OR 2-13,95% 置信区间 1-60-2-84),TFL 组高出 57%(1-57,1-40-2-56),GDA 组没有变化(0-97,0-73-1-29)。OWL 还使正确识别危害最小的选项以及正确识别糖、钠和/或饱和脂肪含量过高的产品的几率最高:OWL 在帮助购物者正确识别产品是否含有过量的相关营养素、正确识别危害最小的选项以及更经常地决定购买危害最小的选项或不购买任何选项方面表现最佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Nutrition
Public Health Nutrition 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
521
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Public Health Nutrition provides an international peer-reviewed forum for the publication and dissemination of research and scholarship aimed at understanding the causes of, and approaches and solutions to nutrition-related public health achievements, situations and problems around the world. The journal publishes original and commissioned articles, commentaries and discussion papers for debate. The journal is of interest to epidemiologists and health promotion specialists interested in the role of nutrition in disease prevention; academics and those involved in fieldwork and the application of research to identify practical solutions to important public health problems.
期刊最新文献
Phase angle is inversely related to the consumption of ultra-processed foods and positively related to the consumption of minimally processed foods by university students: a cross-sectional study Food poverty among children aged 6–59 months in Brazil: results from the Brazilian National Survey on Child Nutrition (ENANI-2019) Exploring the associations of food and financial insecurity and food assistance with breastfeeding practices among first-time mothers. Nutrition environments in early childhood education: do they align with best practice? - ERRATUM. Spatial and temporal patterns of disease burden attributable to high BMI in Belt and Road Initiative countries, 1990-2019.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1