HealthyNCT06840600
Public Support for Prison Nutrition Standards
A study testing Public safety rationale, Right-to-health rationale and Cost-saving rationale in people with Healthy, run by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The goal of this experiment is to examine the impact of policy rationale on public support for prison nutrition standards. The main question this experiment aims to answer is: Does the rationale provided for a policy to improve prison nutrition standards impact public support for such a policy? Additionally, this… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Healthy
- What is being tested?
- Public safety rationale, Right-to-health rationale and Cost-saving rationale
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,201 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 7 May 2025to 4 Jun 2025
- 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
- At least 18 years of age
- Report residing in the US
- Can read and speak English
- Have internet access to complete the online survey
Who cannot join
- Under 18 years of age
- Residing outside the US
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599
About this study
The goal of this experiment is to examine the impact of policy rationale on public support for prison nutrition standards. The main question this experiment aims to answer is:
Does the rationale provided for a policy to improve prison nutrition standards impact public support for such a policy?
Additionally, this experiment aims to answer:
To what extent are participant demographic characteristics correlated with public support for prison nutrition standards?
Read the detailed description
This study aims to examine the impact of policy rationale on public support for prison nutrition standards. In an online survey, participants will be asked to imagine a new U.S. policy which would require prisons to serve meals that meet the government definition of healthy. Participants will then be randomly assigned to view 1 of 3 different rationales for the new policy, or be assigned to a control arm where no rationale is given. All participants will answer a question about support for the policy.
- Conditions
- Healthy
- Being tested
- Public safety rationale, Right-to-health rationale, Cost-saving rationale, No rationale (Control)
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Public safety rationaleBehavioural
Rationale provided for policy is to increase community safety.
Right-to-health rationaleBehavioural
Rationale provided for policy is to support humans' right to healthy food.
Cost-saving rationaleBehavioural
Rationale provided for policy is to save the government money.
No rationale (Control)Behavioural
In this arm, no rationale is provided for the policy.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Public safety rationale | Experimental | Not described Receives: Behavioral: Public safety rationale |
| Right-to-health rationale | Experimental | Not described Receives: Behavioral: Right-to-health rationale |
| Cost-saving rationale | Experimental | Not described Receives: Behavioral: Cost-saving rationale |
| No rationale (Control) | Other | Not described Receives: Behavioral: No rationale (Control) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Policy Support
Policy support will be measured with an item that reads "Would you…" with response options on a 5-point scale ranging from "Strongly oppose this law" coded as 1, to "Strongly support this law", coded as 5. Higher scores indicate stronger policy support.
Measured: Assessed one-time via online survey immediately after participant views each policy rationale (exposure to study stimuli). Overall survey will take approximately 15 minutes.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Feb 2025
- Study start7 May 2025
- Primary completion4 Jun 2025
- Study completion4 Jun 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for HealthyStudies 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
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 1,201 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Stanford University
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Carolyn Chelius, MS, Principal investigator, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06840600
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 25-0030
- Status last verified
- May 2025
- First submitted
- 17 Feb 2025
- Last updated
- 12 Aug 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Aug 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Public Support for Prison Nutrition Standards
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06840600
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 25-0030
- Conditions
- Healthy
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 1,201 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of North Carolina, Chapel HillUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Stanford University
- Study start
- 7 May 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 4 Jun 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 4 Jun 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Feb 2025 (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 goal of this experiment is to examine the impact of policy rationale on public support for prison nutrition standards. The main question this experiment aims to answer is:
Does the rationale provided for a policy to improve prison nutrition standards impact public support for such a policy?
Additionally, this experiment aims to answer:
To what extent are participant demographic characteristics correlated with public support for prison nutrition standards?
Detailed description
This study aims to examine the impact of policy rationale on public support for prison nutrition standards. In an online survey, participants will be asked to imagine a new U.S. policy which would require prisons to serve meals that meet the government definition of healthy. Participants will then be randomly assigned to view 1 of 3 different rationales for the new policy, or be assigned to a control arm where no rationale is given. All participants will answer a question about support for the policy.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Public safety rationale | Experimental | Behavioral: Public safety rationale |
| Right-to-health rationale | Experimental | Behavioral: Right-to-health rationale |
| Cost-saving rationale | Experimental | Behavioral: Cost-saving rationale |
| No rationale (Control) | Other | Behavioral: No rationale (Control) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- At least 18 years of age
- Report residing in the US
- Can read and speak English
- Have internet access to complete the online survey
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Under 18 years of age
- Residing outside the US
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Public safety rationaleRationale provided for policy is to increase community safety. | Behavioural | Public safety rationale |
| Right-to-health rationaleRationale provided for policy is to support humans' right to healthy food. | Behavioural | Right-to-health rationale |
| Cost-saving rationaleRationale provided for policy is to save the government money. | Behavioural | Cost-saving rationale |
| No rationale (Control)In this arm, no rationale is provided for the policy. | Behavioural | No rationale (Control) |
Primary outcome
Policy Support
Time frame: Assessed one-time via online survey immediately after participant views each policy rationale (exposure to study stimuli). Overall survey will take approximately 15 minutes.
Policy support will be measured with an item that reads "Would you…" with response options on a 5-point scale ranging from "Strongly oppose this law" coded as 1, to "Strongly support this law", coded as 5. Higher scores indicate stronger policy support.
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 12 Aug 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Healthy
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Human Subarachnoid Space Using Intrathecal Gadolinium Contrast
Healthy Volunteers
RecruitingObservational study
Survey to Determine Incarcerated Persons' Views on Surrogate Decision Making
Healthy Volunteers
Active, not recruitingPhase 1
A Study to Learn How Different Amounts of the Study Medicine Called PF-07985631 Are Tolerated and Act in the Body of Healthy Adults
Healthy
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Collection and Distribution of Blood Components From Healthy Donors for In Vitro Research Use
Blood Donors, Apheresis
Recruiting
Metabolic Impact of VLCPUFA-Rich Fish Oil: A Clinical Study on Omega-3 Index Enhancement in Healthy Individuals
Fatty Acids, Omega-3, Fish Oils
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.
Carolyn Chelius, MS principal investigator
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Public safety rationale, Right-to-health rationale and Cost-saving rationale in people with Healthy, run by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 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 4 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 12 Aug 2025. 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?
Policy Support (time frame: Assessed one-time via online survey immediately after participant views each policy rationale (exposure to study stimuli). Overall survey will take approximately 15 minutes.). 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 12 Aug 2025.