哥斯达黎加包装正面营养标签制度比较:评估客观理解和购买意向的多组平行随机对照试验。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Appetite Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2024.107774
Fabio S Gomes, Karol M Morales, Damián R Valenzuela, Adriana Blanco-Metzler, Nydia Amador, Karla B Aguilar, Carolina B Palmieri, Tatiana Gamboa-Gamboa, Gastón Ares
{"title":"哥斯达黎加包装正面营养标签制度比较:评估客观理解和购买意向的多组平行随机对照试验。","authors":"Fabio S Gomes, Karol M Morales, Damián R Valenzuela, Adriana Blanco-Metzler, Nydia Amador, Karla B Aguilar, Carolina B Palmieri, Tatiana Gamboa-Gamboa, Gastón Ares","doi":"10.1016/j.appet.2024.107774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Different front-of-package labelling (FOPL) schemes have been developed worldwide to encourage informed and healthier food purchase decisions. However, few studies have formally compared different schemes, particularly in the Latin American context. This study aimed to assess the effects of four different FOPL schemes on the objective understanding of the nutritional content and intention to purchase products. This single-blinded multi-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted using a face-to-face survey with adult shoppers, recruited at supermarkets in Costa Rica (n=1350). Participants randomly assigned to intervention groups saw 12 mock-up products presented at random and balanced orders featuring one FOPL scheme or none: black octagonal warning labels (OWL), Nutri-Score (NUS), traffic-light labelling (TFL), guideline daily amounts (GDA), or no FOPL scheme (control group). Similar number of participants were analysed in each group: OWL (n=264), NUS (n=279), TFL (n=263), GDA (n=273), and control (n=271). Compared to the control group, the odds for correctly identifying the least harmful option more often were three times higher in the OWL group (OR 3.08; 95% CI, 2.26-4.20), and 89%, 57% and 19% higher in the TFL (1.89; 95% CI, 1.40-2.56), the GDA (1.57; 95% CI, 1.16-2.21) and the NUS (1.19; 95% CI 0.89-1.60), respectively. OWL also was more efficacious in helping participants to correctly identify a product with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium, and/or saturated fats, as well as in encouraging the intention to purchase the least harmful or the intention to choose none of the options in the choice task. OWL performed best in helping shoppers to correctly identify when a product contained excessive amounts of nutrients to limit, to correctly identify the least harmful option, and to intend to purchase the least harmful option, more often.</p>","PeriodicalId":242,"journal":{"name":"Appetite","volume":" ","pages":"107774"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes in Costa Rica: a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial assessing objective understanding and purchase intention.\",\"authors\":\"Fabio S Gomes, Karol M Morales, Damián R Valenzuela, Adriana Blanco-Metzler, Nydia Amador, Karla B Aguilar, Carolina B Palmieri, Tatiana Gamboa-Gamboa, Gastón Ares\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.appet.2024.107774\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Different front-of-package labelling (FOPL) schemes have been developed worldwide to encourage informed and healthier food purchase decisions. However, few studies have formally compared different schemes, particularly in the Latin American context. This study aimed to assess the effects of four different FOPL schemes on the objective understanding of the nutritional content and intention to purchase products. This single-blinded multi-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted using a face-to-face survey with adult shoppers, recruited at supermarkets in Costa Rica (n=1350). Participants randomly assigned to intervention groups saw 12 mock-up products presented at random and balanced orders featuring one FOPL scheme or none: black octagonal warning labels (OWL), Nutri-Score (NUS), traffic-light labelling (TFL), guideline daily amounts (GDA), or no FOPL scheme (control group). Similar number of participants were analysed in each group: OWL (n=264), NUS (n=279), TFL (n=263), GDA (n=273), and control (n=271). Compared to the control group, the odds for correctly identifying the least harmful option more often were three times higher in the OWL group (OR 3.08; 95% CI, 2.26-4.20), and 89%, 57% and 19% higher in the TFL (1.89; 95% CI, 1.40-2.56), the GDA (1.57; 95% CI, 1.16-2.21) and the NUS (1.19; 95% CI 0.89-1.60), respectively. OWL also was more efficacious in helping participants to correctly identify a product with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium, and/or saturated fats, as well as in encouraging the intention to purchase the least harmful or the intention to choose none of the options in the choice task. OWL performed best in helping shoppers to correctly identify when a product contained excessive amounts of nutrients to limit, to correctly identify the least harmful option, and to intend to purchase the least harmful option, more often.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Appetite\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"107774\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Appetite\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107774\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Appetite","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107774","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了鼓励人们在知情的情况下做出更健康的食品购买决定,世界各地制定了不同的包装前标签(FOPL)计划。然而,很少有研究对不同的方案进行正式比较,尤其是在拉丁美洲。本研究旨在评估四种不同的 FOPL 方案对客观了解产品营养成分和购买意向的影响。这项单盲多臂随机对照试验采用面对面调查的方式,在哥斯达黎加的超市招募成年购物者(1350 人)。被随机分配到干预组的参与者看到了 12 种模拟产品,这些产品按照随机和平衡的顺序展示,其中有一种食品营养标签方案或没有:黑色八角形警告标签(OWL)、营养评分(NUS)、交通灯标签(TFL)、每日指导量(GDA)或无食品营养标签方案(对照组)。每组分析的参与者人数相近:OWL组(n=264)、NUS组(n=279)、TFL组(n=263)、GDA组(n=273)和对照组(n=271)。与对照组相比,OWL 组正确识别危害最小选项的几率是对照组的三倍(OR 3.08;95% CI,2.26-4.20),TFL 组(1.89;95% CI,1.40-2.56)、GDA 组(1.57;95% CI,1.16-2.21)和 NUS 组(1.19;95% CI,0.89-1.60)分别高出 89%、57% 和 19%。在帮助受试者正确识别糖、钠和/或饱和脂肪含量超标的产品方面,以及在鼓励受试者购买危害最小的产品或在选择任务中不选择任何选项方面,OWL 也更有效。OWL 在帮助购物者正确识别产品中含有过量营养素、正确识别有害物质最少的选项以及更经常地购买有害物质最少的选项方面表现最佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes in Costa Rica: a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial assessing objective understanding and purchase intention.

Different front-of-package labelling (FOPL) schemes have been developed worldwide to encourage informed and healthier food purchase decisions. However, few studies have formally compared different schemes, particularly in the Latin American context. This study aimed to assess the effects of four different FOPL schemes on the objective understanding of the nutritional content and intention to purchase products. This single-blinded multi-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted using a face-to-face survey with adult shoppers, recruited at supermarkets in Costa Rica (n=1350). Participants randomly assigned to intervention groups saw 12 mock-up products presented at random and balanced orders featuring one FOPL scheme or none: black octagonal warning labels (OWL), Nutri-Score (NUS), traffic-light labelling (TFL), guideline daily amounts (GDA), or no FOPL scheme (control group). Similar number of participants were analysed in each group: OWL (n=264), NUS (n=279), TFL (n=263), GDA (n=273), and control (n=271). Compared to the control group, the odds for correctly identifying the least harmful option more often were three times higher in the OWL group (OR 3.08; 95% CI, 2.26-4.20), and 89%, 57% and 19% higher in the TFL (1.89; 95% CI, 1.40-2.56), the GDA (1.57; 95% CI, 1.16-2.21) and the NUS (1.19; 95% CI 0.89-1.60), respectively. OWL also was more efficacious in helping participants to correctly identify a product with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium, and/or saturated fats, as well as in encouraging the intention to purchase the least harmful or the intention to choose none of the options in the choice task. OWL performed best in helping shoppers to correctly identify when a product contained excessive amounts of nutrients to limit, to correctly identify the least harmful option, and to intend to purchase the least harmful option, more often.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Appetite
Appetite 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
566
审稿时长
13.4 weeks
期刊介绍: Appetite is an international research journal specializing in cultural, social, psychological, sensory and physiological influences on the selection and intake of foods and drinks. It covers normal and disordered eating and drinking and welcomes studies of both human and non-human animal behaviour toward food. Appetite publishes research reports, reviews and commentaries. Thematic special issues appear regularly. From time to time the journal carries abstracts from professional meetings. Submissions to Appetite are expected to be based primarily on observations directly related to the selection and intake of foods and drinks; papers that are primarily focused on topics such as nutrition or obesity will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution to the understanding of appetite in line with the journal's aims and scope.
期刊最新文献
Feeding Desires: Understanding the Food Needs and Wishes of Women Experiencing Homelessness in São Paulo. Childcare Staff Feeding Practices Associated with Children's Willingness-to-try-new-foods. Comparison of front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes in Costa Rica: a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial assessing objective understanding and purchase intention. “Flavor, fun, and vitamins”? Consumers’ lay beliefs about child-oriented food products Does Rejection of Inequality Encourage Green Consumption? The Effect of Power Distance Belief on Organic Food Consumption.
×
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