Eating BehaviorNCT04064775
The Influence of Fictitious Peers in a Social Media Intervention for Downsizing Portions: The Smart Snacking Studies
A study testing Smart snacking intervention in people with Eating Behavior and Social Psychology, run by University of Leeds.
Trial summary
The 2 interventions aimed to examine whether peer-led nudging on social media may be a way of influencing young adults and adolescents to reduce their self-reported ideal portion sizes of high energy-dense snacks and sugar-sweetened beverages. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 13 to 16 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Eating Behavior, Social Psychology
- What is being tested?
- Smart snacking intervention
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 44 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 8 Dec 2016to 1 Jun 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 13 to 16 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- 13-16 years old (intervention 2)
Who cannot join
- Younger than 13 or older than 16 (intervention 2).
- History of or current eating disorder
About this study
The 2 interventions aimed to examine whether peer-led nudging on social media may be a way of influencing young adults and adolescents to reduce their self-reported ideal portion sizes of high energy-dense snacks and sugar-sweetened beverages.
Read the detailed description
Two pilot interventions were conducted which examined the influence of peer-led nudging on social media as a way of influencing self-reported ideal portions of high energy-dense snacks and sugar-sweetened beverages. In both interventions the peers posted images of 'their' snacks and beverages, which constituted the recommended portion, onto an Instagram account. The peers also posted images relating to portion sizes, calories and other information related to health but not specifically portion size. It was hypothesised that viewing images of peers' snacks would influence the participants to reduce their own snack and beverage ideal portion sizes.
Intervention 1 lasted for 2 weeks and recruited young adults and used a within-subjects design. Intervention 2 lasted for 4 weeks and recruited adolescents and used a between-subjects design. In intervention 2, participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention or the control condition. This protocol focusses on intervention 2.
In both interventions, participants in the intervention condition were added to an Instagram account and were required to visit Instagram daily and to like all posts. All participants (intervention and control) completed a survey at baseline and at the end of the intervention, and completed quizzes at the end of each week.
- Conditions
- Eating Behavior, Social Psychology
- Being tested
- Smart snacking intervention
- Keywords
- Social influence, Peer influence
- Medical subject headings
- Feeding Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Smart snacking interventionBehavioural
The smart snacking intervention aimed to examine whether peer-led nudging on social media influenced adolescents to reduce their self-reported ideal portion sizes for a variety of HED snacks and SSBs. In intervention 2, participants were randomly allocated to the intervention or control condition, and their ideal portion sizes were assessed through a survey at baseline and intervention end.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Smart snacking intervention | Experimental | In intervention 2 participants took part in a 4-week intervention on Instagram. Participants saw images of fictitious peers' snacks or beverages three times per week, and saw snack information images three times per week. Peer snack images were posted on days 2,4 and 6 of each week, and snack information images were posted on days 1,3 and 5 of each week. Images were posted between 10-11am each day. Participants also completed quizzes related to snacking at the end of weeks 1-3. Participants completed a survey at baseline and intervention end to assess their ideal portion sizes to allow for examination of the effectiveness of the intervention. Receives: Behavioral: Smart snacking intervention |
| Control | No intervention | Participants in the control received no intervention. They completed the questionnaires at the end of weeks 1, 2 and 3, and also completed the surveys at baseline and intervention end. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Self-reported ideal portion size
Questionnaire measuring participants' self-reported ideal portion size. The aim of the intervention was to reduce the ideal portion size. Participants were provided with different images of food. For each image, judgements were made on whether the portion was 'too little', 'slightly less than I would eat', 'just right', 'slightly more than I would eat', or 'too much'.
Measured: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4.
Secondary outcomes (3)
Perceptions of peers' ideal portion sizes
Questionnaire measuring participants' perceptions of their peers' ideal portion sizes. Participants were provided with images of different energy dense foods. For each image, judgements were made on whether the portion was 'too little', 'slightly less than I would eat', 'just right', 'slightly more than I would eat', or 'too much'. The aim of the intervention was to reduce the ideal portion size.
Measured: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4
Participants liking and frequency of consumption of high energy dense snack foods and sugar-sweetened beverages
Questionnaire measuring participants' liking and frequency of consumption. Participants' reported frequency of consumption for and liking of each item were assessed based on questions used by Stok, De Ridder, De Vet, \& De Wit (2014). Mean frequency and liking scores were calculated for HED snacks and SSBs. A low score for frequency indicated that the item was not eaten frequently, a low score for liking indicated that the item was not liked.
Measured: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4
Participants' intentions regarding their portions
Questionnaire measuring participants' intentions. Participants' reported intentions which were assessed based on questions used by Stok, De Ridder, De Vet, \& De Wit (2014). Mean intention scores were calculated for HED snacks and SSBs. A low score for intention score indicated that participants did not intend to change their behaviour.
Measured: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Aug 2019
- Study start8 Dec 2016
- Primary completion1 Jun 2017
- Study completion1 Jun 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Eating BehaviorStudies 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
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Intervention 2 used a parallel design where participants were either allocated to an intervention or a control group in a between-subjects repeated measures design.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Leeds
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Coventry University, Penn State University
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Charlotte Evans, University of Leeds
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04064775
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 17-0111/ 17-0094
- Status last verified
- Aug 2019
- First submitted
- 16 May 2019
- Last updated
- 22 Aug 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Data will be available on request. Only anonymised data will be available.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Aug 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Influence of Fictitious Peers in a Social Media Intervention for Downsizing Portions: The Smart Snacking Studies
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04064775
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 17-0111/ 17-0094
- Conditions
- Eating Behavior, Social Psychology
- Keywords
- Social influence, Peer influence
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of LeedsUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Coventry University, Penn State University
- Study start
- 8 Dec 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jun 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jun 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Aug 2019 (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 2 interventions aimed to examine whether peer-led nudging on social media may be a way of influencing young adults and adolescents to reduce their self-reported ideal portion sizes of high energy-dense snacks and sugar-sweetened beverages.
Detailed description
Two pilot interventions were conducted which examined the influence of peer-led nudging on social media as a way of influencing self-reported ideal portions of high energy-dense snacks and sugar-sweetened beverages. In both interventions the peers posted images of 'their' snacks and beverages, which constituted the recommended portion, onto an Instagram account. The peers also posted images relating to portion sizes, calories and other information related to health but not specifically portion size. It was hypothesised that viewing images of peers' snacks would influence the participants to reduce their own snack and beverage ideal portion sizes.
Intervention 1 lasted for 2 weeks and recruited young adults and used a within-subjects design. Intervention 2 lasted for 4 weeks and recruited adolescents and used a between-subjects design. In intervention 2, participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention or the control condition. This protocol focusses on intervention 2.
In both interventions, participants in the intervention condition were added to an Instagram account and were required to visit Instagram daily and to like all posts. All participants (intervention and control) completed a survey at baseline and at the end of the intervention, and completed quizzes at the end of each week.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Intervention 2 used a parallel design where participants were either allocated to an intervention or a control group in a between-subjects repeated measures design.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Smart snacking intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: Smart snacking interventionIn intervention 2 participants took part in a 4-week intervention on Instagram. Participants saw images of fictitious peers' snacks or beverages three times per week, and saw snack information images three times per week. Peer snack images were posted on days 2,4 and 6 of each week, and snack information images were posted on days 1,3 and 5 of each week. Images were posted between 10-11am each day. Participants also completed quizzes related to snacking at the end of weeks 1-3. Participants completed a survey at baseline and intervention end to assess their ideal portion sizes to allow for examination of the effectiveness of the intervention. |
| Control | No intervention | –Participants in the control received no intervention. They completed the questionnaires at the end of weeks 1, 2 and 3, and also completed the surveys at baseline and intervention end. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 13 to 16 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 13-16 years old (intervention 2)
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Younger than 13 or older than 16 (intervention 2).
- History of or current eating disorder
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Smart snacking interventionThe smart snacking intervention aimed to examine whether peer-led nudging on social media influenced adolescents to reduce their self-reported ideal portion sizes for a variety of HED snacks and SSBs. In intervention 2, participants were randomly allocated to the intervention or control condition, and their ideal portion sizes were assessed through a survey at baseline and intervention end. | Behavioural | Smart snacking intervention |
Primary outcome
Self-reported ideal portion size
Time frame: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4.
Questionnaire measuring participants' self-reported ideal portion size. The aim of the intervention was to reduce the ideal portion size. Participants were provided with different images of food. For each image, judgements were made on whether the portion was 'too little', 'slightly less than I would eat', 'just right', 'slightly more than I would eat', or 'too much'.
3 secondary outcomes
Perceptions of peers' ideal portion sizes
Time frame: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4
Participants liking and frequency of consumption of high energy dense snack foods and sugar-sweetened beverages
Time frame: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4
Participants' intentions regarding their portions
Time frame: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4
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 22 Aug 2019.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Data will be available on request. Only anonymised data will be available.
Related trials for Eating Behavior
Recruiting
An Online Intuitive Eating Program for Pregnant Women With Obesity to Support Well-Being
Excessive Gestational Weight Gain, Pregnancy
Not yet recruiting
Compulsive Eating and Brain's Reward System in Different Pathologies
PARKINSON DISEASE (Disorder), Bipolar 1 Disorder
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Assessing the Impact of Perceptions of Unpredictability on Objective Measures of Food Consumption and Metabolism
Healthy Volunteer, Obestity
Not yet recruiting
Effectiveness of a 10-week Multicomponent Intervention Combined With Parent Education on Binge Eating Behavior in Children and Adolescents
Binge Eating Disorder, Binge Eating
Recruiting
Nutrition Outcomes Using a Randomized Intervention Via Smartphone on Dietary Habits
Healthy Adult Participants, Mindful Eating Intervention
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 Smart snacking intervention in people with Eating Behavior and Social Psychology, run by University of Leeds.
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 22 Aug 2019. 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?
Self-reported ideal portion size (time frame: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4.). 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 22 Aug 2019.