Food HabitsNCT03340363
"Make It Fresh, For Less" Supermarket Pilot Study
A study testing environmental change and messaging in people with Food Habits and Consumer Behavior, run by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH).
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of environmental modifications (choice architecture and a marketing campaign) in combination with weekly text messages on purchases of foods made by parents shopping in a large supermarket. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Food Habits, Consumer Behavior
- What is being tested?
- environmental change and messaging
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 401 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 8 Oct 2015to 1 Jan 2017
- 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 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 18 years of age or older
- English-speaking
- Live with a child 18 years of age or younger
- Do more than 50% of shopping at the study store
- Primary shopper in the household
Who cannot join
- None
About this study
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of environmental modifications (choice architecture and a marketing campaign) in combination with weekly text messages on purchases of foods made by parents shopping in a large supermarket.
Read the detailed description
The "Make It Fresh, For Less" Supermarket Pilot Study is a supermarket-based intervention developed by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in collaboration with the nonprofit organization ChopChop Magazine (chopchopmagazine.org) and a large Northeastern supermarket chain. A promotional campaign advertising low-cost, kid-friendly meals was piloted in one store selected by the supermarket partner, with promotions rotating every 4 weeks during a 16-week intervention period. Parent shoppers were recruited (n=401) at the store and given a study loyalty card to track their transactions. At the start of the intervention, half of the participants were additionally randomized to receive weekly behavioral messages via text message or email. Supermarket purchases were assessed at baseline, during the 16-week intervention, and up to 6-weeks post-intervention.
Primary Aim 1: to examine the impact of a choice architecture intervention in combination with a promotional campaign on food purchases of parents shopping in a large supermarket. It is hypothesized that there will be an increase in selection of foods targeted by the promotional campaign when physical modifications are made.
Primary Aim 2: to examine the impact of weekly behavioral messages in combination with an environmental change intervention on food purchases of parents shopping in a large supermarket. It is hypothesized that there will be a greater increase in selection of foods targeted by the promotional campaign among participants receiving the messages compared to participants exposed to the environmental change intervention alone.
- Conditions
- Food Habits, Consumer Behavior
- Being tested
- environmental change, messaging
- Medical subject headings
- Feeding Behavior, Consumer Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
environmental changeBehavioural
Also called choice architecture, promotional campaign
- Offer kid-friendly, low-cost recipes in a prominent, high-traffic location.
- Offer healthy default ingredients (bundled ingredients promoted with recipes).
- Promote recipe ingredients with prominently displayed signage and images.
- Promote recipes in multiple locations throughout the store.
messagingBehavioural
Short, behavioral messages sent to participants via text message or email each week to promote the in-store environmental changes
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| environmental change | Experimental | Shoppers were exposed to modifications to the supermarket environment to encourage selection of low-cost, kid-friendly meals Receives: Behavioral: environmental change |
| environmental change and messaging | Experimental | Shoppers were exposed to modifications to the supermarket environment and weekly messages via text or email to encourage selection of low-cost, kid-friendly meals Receives: Behavioral: environmental change; Behavioral: messaging |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in weekly purchases of recipe components (Selection of items bundled with each recipe) during four, 4-week promotional campaigns
Purchase of recipe ingredients
Measured: Baseline, during intervention (4 weeks each) and up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Secondary outcomes (8)
Change in weekly purchases of other food categories (substitution of recipe ingredients for other foods)
Substitution of recipe ingredients for other foods
Measured: Baseline, during intervention (4 weeks each) and up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Differential change in weekly purchases of recipe components by SNAP-eligibility
Stratification by SNAP-eligibility, recipe components
Measured: Baseline, during intervention (4 weeks each) and up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Differential change in weekly purchases of other food groups (substitution) by SNAP-eligibility
Stratification by SNAP-eligibility, other food groups
Measured: Baseline, during intervention (4 weeks each) and up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Acceptability of intervention (self-reported survey measures)
Shopper responses to survey questions asking participants to rate the acceptability of each recipe (taste, cost, difficulty, perceptions of children's preferences) on a Likert scale from 1-5.
Measured: Up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Recall of intervention (self-reported survey measures)
Shopper responses to survey questions regarding aided and unaided recall. Unaided recall asks shoppers to choose the best description of what they saw in the store and aided recall asks shoppers whether they remember seeing various elements of the display in the store (yes, no, not sure). These measures will be combined to report the proportion of shoppers who recalled each component of the intervention either through aided or unaided means.
Measured: Up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Adoption of intervention (self-reported survey measures)
Shopper responses to survey questions asking whether the shopper made each recipe in the display.
Measured: Up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Reach of intervention (direct observation measures)
Observation of shopper interactions with promotional campaign (count of number of shoppers who passed the display, looked at the display, and took an item from the display).
Measured: During intervention (4 weeks each)
Fidelity to intended intervention (direct observation measures)
Monthly random site visits to assess presence or absence of each element of the display (placards, poster, recipe cards, intended ingredients, store banners).
Measured: During intervention (4 weeks each)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Nov 2017
- Study start8 Oct 2015
- Primary completion1 Jan 2017
- Study completion1 Jan 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Food HabitsStudies 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
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 401 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Duke University, University of New England, Massachusetts General Hospital
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Eric B. Rimm, Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03340363
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- BECR-111191
- Status last verified
- Nov 2017
- First submitted
- 8 Feb 2017
- Last updated
- 13 Nov 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Nov 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- "Make It Fresh, For Less" Supermarket Pilot Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03340363
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- BECR-111191
- Conditions
- Food Habits, Consumer Behavior
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 401 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Duke University, University of New England, Massachusetts General Hospital
- Study start
- 8 Oct 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jan 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jan 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 13 Nov 2017 (actual)
- 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 purpose of this study is to examine the impact of environmental modifications (choice architecture and a marketing campaign) in combination with weekly text messages on purchases of foods made by parents shopping in a large supermarket.
Detailed description
The "Make It Fresh, For Less" Supermarket Pilot Study is a supermarket-based intervention developed by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in collaboration with the nonprofit organization ChopChop Magazine (chopchopmagazine.org) and a large Northeastern supermarket chain. A promotional campaign advertising low-cost, kid-friendly meals was piloted in one store selected by the supermarket partner, with promotions rotating every 4 weeks during a 16-week intervention period. Parent shoppers were recruited (n=401) at the store and given a study loyalty card to track their transactions. At the start of the intervention, half of the participants were additionally randomized to receive weekly behavioral messages via text message or email. Supermarket purchases were assessed at baseline, during the 16-week intervention, and up to 6-weeks post-intervention.
Primary Aim 1: to examine the impact of a choice architecture intervention in combination with a promotional campaign on food purchases of parents shopping in a large supermarket. It is hypothesized that there will be an increase in selection of foods targeted by the promotional campaign when physical modifications are made.
Primary Aim 2: to examine the impact of weekly behavioral messages in combination with an environmental change intervention on food purchases of parents shopping in a large supermarket. It is hypothesized that there will be a greater increase in selection of foods targeted by the promotional campaign among participants receiving the messages compared to participants exposed to the environmental change intervention alone.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| environmental change | Experimental | Behavioral: environmental changeShoppers were exposed to modifications to the supermarket environment to encourage selection of low-cost, kid-friendly meals |
| environmental change and messaging | Experimental | Behavioral: environmental change, Behavioral: messagingShoppers were exposed to modifications to the supermarket environment and weekly messages via text or email to encourage selection of low-cost, kid-friendly meals |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- 18 years of age or older
- English-speaking
- Live with a child 18 years of age or younger
- Do more than 50% of shopping at the study store
- Primary shopper in the household
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None
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 |
|---|---|---|
| environmental changeAlso: choice architecture, promotional campaign1. Offer kid-friendly, low-cost recipes in a prominent, high-traffic location. 2. Offer healthy default ingredients (bundled ingredients promoted with recipes). 3. Promote recipe ingredients with prominently displayed signage and images. 4. Promote recipes in multiple locations throughout the store. | Behavioural | environmental change, environmental change and messaging |
| messagingShort, behavioral messages sent to participants via text message or email each week to promote the in-store environmental changes | Behavioural | environmental change and messaging |
Primary outcome
Change in weekly purchases of recipe components (Selection of items bundled with each recipe) during four, 4-week promotional campaigns
Time frame: Baseline, during intervention (4 weeks each) and up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Purchase of recipe ingredients
8 secondary outcomes
Change in weekly purchases of other food categories (substitution of recipe ingredients for other foods)
Time frame: Baseline, during intervention (4 weeks each) and up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Differential change in weekly purchases of recipe components by SNAP-eligibility
Time frame: Baseline, during intervention (4 weeks each) and up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Differential change in weekly purchases of other food groups (substitution) by SNAP-eligibility
Time frame: Baseline, during intervention (4 weeks each) and up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Acceptability of intervention (self-reported survey measures)
Time frame: Up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Recall of intervention (self-reported survey measures)
Time frame: Up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Adoption of intervention (self-reported survey measures)
Time frame: Up to 6 weeks post-intervention
Reach of intervention (direct observation measures)
Time frame: During intervention (4 weeks each)
Fidelity to intended intervention (direct observation measures)
Time frame: During intervention (4 weeks each)
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 13 Nov 2017.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Food Habits
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
NutFinForce - Lifestyle Performance Medicine Intervention on Defense Performance in Finland
No Condition
Active, not recruiting
The Effect of Lifestyle Program Women With PCOS
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Recruiting
Can Food Timing Reduce Your Diabetes Risk?
Dietary Habits
Not yet recruiting
Nutrition Outcomes Using a Randomized Intervention Via Smartphone on Dietary Habits
Healthy Adult Participants, Mindful Eating Intervention
Not yet recruiting
Tiny Tummies - A Milk Study
Gut Microbiome, Neurocognitive Correlates of Eating Habits
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing environmental change and messaging in people with Food Habits and Consumer Behavior, run by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH).
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 5 inclusion and 1 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 13 Nov 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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 weekly purchases of recipe components (Selection of items bundled with each recipe) during four, 4-week promotional campaigns (time frame: Baseline, during intervention (4 weeks each) and up to 6 weeks post-intervention). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 13 Nov 2017.