ObesityNCT02461108
Nudging Nutrition With Monetary Incentives Environmental Cues
A study testing Subsidy, Tax and Tax and subsidy in people with Obesity and Food Labeling, run by Cornell University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The investigators hypothesize that monetary incentives and messaging, such as making nutritious foods relatively less expensive than less nutritious foods and framing the price difference in a positive or negative way, will influence purchasing behavior of households. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 70 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Obesity, Food Labeling, Health Behavior
- What is being tested?
- Subsidy, Tax and Tax and subsidy
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 221 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- May 2010to Apr 2011
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Loyalty card shoppers at Hannaford grocery stores
Who cannot join
- No children in household
- Less than 75% of food purchases made at Hannaford grocery stores
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Nudging Nutrition: Evaluating the Impact of Monetary Incentives and Environmental Cues on Food Choices
The investigators hypothesize that monetary incentives and messaging, such as making nutritious foods relatively less expensive than less nutritious foods and framing the price difference in a positive or negative way, will influence purchasing behavior of households.
Read the detailed description
In this study, 239 loyalty card shoppers were recruited at Hannaford grocery stores to participate in a study in which a 10% price difference between nutritious and less nutritious foods was introduced. and then framed as a subsidy, tax, or a combination of a tax and subsidy. To determine whether or not the framing of the price difference influenced purchasing behavior, the difference was framed as a subsidy on nutritious foods, a tax on less nutritious foods, and a combination of a tax and subsidy on less nutritious and nutritious foods, respectively. The purpose of this study was to examine the general impact of this price difference on purchases of nutritious and less nutritious foods, and whether or not the framing of the price difference had a differential effect on behavior.
- Conditions
- Obesity, Food Labeling, Health Behavior, Diet
- Being tested
- Subsidy, Tax, Tax and subsidy
- Keywords
- Public policy, Food choice, Nutrition labeling, Fat tax, Vegetable subsidy, Behavioral economics, Health behavior
- Medical subject headings
- Obesity, Health Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
SubsidyBehavioural
Frame the price difference as a 10% subsidy on nutritious food items.
TaxBehavioural
Frame the price difference as a 10% tax on less nutritious food items.
Tax and subsidyBehavioural
Frame the price difference as a 5% tax on less nutritious food items and a 5% subsidy on nutritious food items, creating a 10% relative price difference between the types of foods.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Price difference | Experimental | Introduce a 10% price difference between foods labeled as nutritious and foods labeled as less nutritious and frame the price difference as either a Subsidy, Tax, or combination of a Tax and Subsidy. Receives: Behavioral: Subsidy; Behavioral: Tax; Behavioral: Tax and subsidy |
| No price difference | No intervention | No price difference between nutritious and less nutritious foods. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in expenditures on nutritious and less nutritious foods
Item level transaction data were collected for each participant between mid-July 2010 and mid-March 2011. These data included expenditures on all items purchased in the store. Average weekly expenditures were generated and reported in Aug 2011.
Measured: 8 months
Secondary outcomes (2)
Change in quantities purchased of nutritious and less nutritious foods
Item level transaction data were collected for each participant between mid-July 2010 and mid-March 2011. These data included quantities of all items purchased in the store. Average weekly quantities purchased were generated and reported in Aug 2011.
Measured: 8 months
Change in expenditures on nutritious and less nutritious foods in specific food categories.
Item level transaction data were collected for each participant between mid-July 2010 and mid-March 2011. These data included expenditures on all items purchased in the store, as well as the specific product type. With this information, product groupings can be created, such as for dairy, candy, and fresh produce. Average weekly expenditures for these groupings were generated and reported in July 2012.
Measured: 8 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Jun 2015 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2010
- Primary completionMar 2011
- Study completionApr 2011
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for ObesityStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 221 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Cornell University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institutes of Health (NIH), Ohio State University, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Brian Wansink, PhD, Study director, Cornell UniversityDavid Just, PhD, Principal investigator, Cornell University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02461108
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1110002491
- Other IDs
- 1RC1HD063370-01
- Status last verified
- Jun 2015
- First submitted
- 1 Jun 2015
- Last updated
- 3 Jun 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Pope L, Hanks AS, Just DR, Wansink B. New Year's res-illusions: food shopping in the new year competes with healthy intentions. PLoS One. 2014 Dec 16;9(12):e110561. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110561. eCollection 2014.
PubMed 25514158
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Jun 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Nudging Nutrition: Evaluating the Impact of Monetary Incentives and Environmental Cues on Food Choices
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02461108
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 1110002491
- Conditions
- Obesity, Food Labeling, Health Behavior, Diet
- Keywords
- Public policy, Food choice, Nutrition labeling, Fat tax, Vegetable subsidy, Behavioral economics, Health behavior
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 221 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Cornell UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institutes of Health (NIH), Ohio State University, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Study start
- May 2010
- Primary completion
- Mar 2011 (actual)
- Study completion
- Apr 2011 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 Jun 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The investigators hypothesize that monetary incentives and messaging, such as making nutritious foods relatively less expensive than less nutritious foods and framing the price difference in a positive or negative way, will influence purchasing behavior of households.
Detailed description
In this study, 239 loyalty card shoppers were recruited at Hannaford grocery stores to participate in a study in which a 10% price difference between nutritious and less nutritious foods was introduced. and then framed as a subsidy, tax, or a combination of a tax and subsidy. To determine whether or not the framing of the price difference influenced purchasing behavior, the difference was framed as a subsidy on nutritious foods, a tax on less nutritious foods, and a combination of a tax and subsidy on less nutritious and nutritious foods, respectively. The purpose of this study was to examine the general impact of this price difference on purchases of nutritious and less nutritious foods, and whether or not the framing of the price difference had a differential effect on behavior.
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Price difference | Experimental | Behavioral: Subsidy, Behavioral: Tax, Behavioral: Tax and subsidyIntroduce a 10% price difference between foods labeled as nutritious and foods labeled as less nutritious and frame the price difference as either a Subsidy, Tax, or combination of a Tax and Subsidy. |
| No price difference | No intervention | –No price difference between nutritious and less nutritious foods. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Loyalty card shoppers at Hannaford grocery stores
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- No children in household
- Less than 75% of food purchases made at Hannaford grocery stores
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| SubsidyFrame the price difference as a 10% subsidy on nutritious food items. | Behavioural | Price difference |
| TaxFrame the price difference as a 10% tax on less nutritious food items. | Behavioural | Price difference |
| Tax and subsidyFrame the price difference as a 5% tax on less nutritious food items and a 5% subsidy on nutritious food items, creating a 10% relative price difference between the types of foods. | Behavioural | Price difference |
Primary outcome
Change in expenditures on nutritious and less nutritious foods
Time frame: 8 months
Item level transaction data were collected for each participant between mid-July 2010 and mid-March 2011. These data included expenditures on all items purchased in the store. Average weekly expenditures were generated and reported in Aug 2011.
2 secondary outcomes
Change in quantities purchased of nutritious and less nutritious foods
Time frame: 8 months
Change in expenditures on nutritious and less nutritious foods in specific food categories.
Time frame: 8 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Jun 2015.
- Results publication: PubMed 25514158Pope L, Hanks AS, Just DR, Wansink B. New Year's res-illusions: food shopping in the new year competes with healthy intentions. PLoS One. 2014 Dec 16;9(12):e110561. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110561. eCollection 2014.
Related trials for Obesity
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Assessing the Impact of Perceptions of Unpredictability on Objective Measures of Food Consumption and Metabolism
Healthy Volunteer, Obestity
RecruitingPhase 3
Trial to Evaluate ALN-CIDEB in Adults With Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD)
Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease, MASLD
Recruiting
Diet Order Effects of Low Fat vs. Low Carb Diets on Body Fat Change
Overweight, Obesity
RecruitingPhase 1
Evaluate the Safety and Tolerability of Multiple Doses of JMT206 Injection in Obese Participants
Valid MeSH Conditiongs
Not yet recruiting
Prospective Evaluation of Recombinant Pbserum Plus® and Pbserum HA 2.0® in Aesthetic and Regenerative Bioremodeling
Skin Laxity, Localized Adiposity
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Brian Wansink, PhD study director
Cornell University
David Just, PhD principal investigator
Cornell University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Subsidy, Tax and Tax and subsidy in people with Obesity and Food Labeling, run by Cornell University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Jun 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in expenditures on nutritious and less nutritious foods (time frame: 8 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02461108, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 Jun 2015.