Social PerceptionChangingNCT07091591
"Why do the Recommendations Keep Changing?" A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Scrollytelling Web Application to Help Members of the Public Understand Better How and Why Public Health Guidelines Change Over Time
A study testing Changing (version: pandemic) and Changing (version: nutrition) in people with Social Perception and Psychology, run by Laval University at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
This study will be an online 3-arm randomized controlled trial. Here intervention group 1 will receive the intervention in the form of an animated cartoon "scrollytelling" outlining the various changes and reasons for changes in public health guidelines in the context of nutrition (e.g. recommendations on fat intake). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Social Perception, Psychology
- What is being tested?
- Changing (version: pandemic) and Changing (version: nutrition)
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 525 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 24 Jul 2025to 30 Sep 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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
- We will recruit participants who are aged 18 years or older. They will be able to provide written informed consent, and be able to read and understand French or English. Additionally, they should be able to use a computer.
Who cannot join
- We will exclude participants who are younger than 18 years old, unable to provide written informed consent, unable to read or understand French or English, or unable to use a computer.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
This study will be an online 3-arm randomized controlled trial. Here intervention group 1 will receive the intervention in the form of an animated cartoon "scrollytelling" outlining the various changes and reasons for changes in public health guidelines in the context of nutrition (e.g. recommendations on fat intake). Intervention group 2 will have a scrollytelling on the reasons why public health recommendations always change in the context of infectious disease control (e.g. during the COVID-19 pandemic). And finally, the control group will receive no intervention.
Read the detailed description
The project was initially conceived on Figma, a design platform, enabling our design team to create a user interface. Following this design phase, our experienced developers took over, using the Vue.js framework. Development involved fundamental web languages: JavaScript, CSS and HTML. JavaScript made the interface dynamic for smooth user interaction, CSS applied the detailed visual design conceived on Figma, and HTML structured the application's content. This combination resulted in an application, showcasing Vue.js's effectiveness in application development. Our intervention was the "Changing" application, which was a scrollytelling that, in its two versions (food and pandemic), explained why and how public health guidelines are being changed. The main purpose of the "Changing" application is to explain the reasons for ongoing changes in public health guidelines, using COVID-19 and nutrition as examples.
- Conditions
- Social Perception, Psychology
- Being tested
- Changing (version: pandemic), Changing (version: nutrition)
- Keywords
- Public Health Agency of Canada, Public health guidelines, Scientific skepticism, Nutrition, Food policy, Nutrition guidelines
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Changing (version: pandemic)Behavioural
The application explains that, faced with a complex situation such as a pandemic, decision-makers have to navigate through uncertainty, often without knowing exactly how the situation will evolve. Scientific research guides their choices, but early studies can sometimes prove inaccurate and require adjustments. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some initial studies showed that certain drugs could help, but more rigorous research showed that they were not effective. Over time, accumulated knowledge enables us to better understand the situation and make informed decisions. Lessons learned from past crises help to better prepare for future complex situations.
Changing (version: nutrition)Behavioural
The intervention discusses the evolving nature of scientific research on diet and health. It explains how initial studies can suggest one thing, only for later studies to offer new insights or clarify previous findings. For example, while early research linked high fat intake with heart disease, more recent studies have shown that some fats, like those in nuts, avocados, and oily fish, are actually beneficial. It emphasizes that science often advances gradually, and rigorous, long-term studies help understanding. It also points out that health recommendations are influenced by multiple factors, and over time, accumulated knowledge enables us to better understand the situation and make informed decisions.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Pandemic | Experimental | Web page explaining the reasons for shifting recommendations in the context of a pandemic. Receives: Behavioral: Changing (version: pandemic) |
| Nutrition | Active comparator | Web page explaining the reasons for shifting recommendations in the context of nutrition. Receives: Behavioral: Changing (version: nutrition) |
| Control | No intervention | No material of information is provided |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Anti-intellectualism
Anti-intellectualism can be defined as "the refusal to recognize the pre-eminence of intelligence and the value of the sciences". Richard Hofstadter (1963) described anti-intellectualism generally as " a resentment and distrust of the things of the mind and those who represent it" (Hofstadter 1966). This sentiment is captured through a set of six items measuring attitudes towards various authoritative figures and institutions, including medical doctors, scientists, economists , teachers, expert and the Public Health Agency of Canada (Merkley and Loewen 2021). These attitudes are typically assessed using a Likert scale, a widely used semantic rating system in surveys that offers respondents a nuanced range of responses (typically 5 or 7 options) to gauge their perceptions, attitudes, and opinions accurately. Unlike binary "Yes" or "No" responses, this scale allows for a more detailed understanding of how individuals perceive and intercept the issues under investigation.
Measured: Immediately after intervention
Secondary outcomes (1)
Knowledge-changing
This variable measured individuals perceptions and beliefs concerning various aspects of scientific knowledge and its role in public health decisions. Items addressed the relationship between scientific discoveries, political decisions and the evolution of knowledge.
It is a discrete quantitative variable whose score ranges from 0 to 10, with the answers to the ten questions being true=1 or false=0.
Measured: Immediately after intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Jul 2025
- Study start24 Jul 2025
- Primary completion14 Aug 2025
- Study completion30 Sep 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Social PerceptionStudies 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
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 525 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Laval University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Holly Witteman, Laval University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07091591
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Changing
- Other IDs
- VR5-172668
- Acronym
- Changing
- Status last verified
- Sep 2025
- First submitted
- 21 Jul 2025
- Last updated
- 9 Sep 2025
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: We will make anonymized data available on Boréalis, Université Laval's Dataverse.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 Sep 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- "Why do the Recommendations Keep Changing?" A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Scrollytelling Web Application to Help Members of the Public Understand Better How and Why Public Health Guidelines Change Over Time
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07091591
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Changing / Changing
- Conditions
- Social Perception, Psychology
- Keywords
- Public Health Agency of Canada, Public health guidelines, Scientific skepticism, Nutrition, Food policy, Nutrition guidelines
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 525 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Laval UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 24 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 14 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Sep 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 29 Jul 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.
This study will be an online 3-arm randomized controlled trial. Here intervention group 1 will receive the intervention in the form of an animated cartoon "scrollytelling" outlining the various changes and reasons for changes in public health guidelines in the context of nutrition (e.g. recommendations on fat intake). Intervention group 2 will have a scrollytelling on the reasons why public health recommendations always change in the context of infectious disease control (e.g. during the COVID-19 pandemic). And finally, the control group will receive no intervention.
Detailed description
The project was initially conceived on Figma, a design platform, enabling our design team to create a user interface. Following this design phase, our experienced developers took over, using the Vue.js framework. Development involved fundamental web languages: JavaScript, CSS and HTML. JavaScript made the interface dynamic for smooth user interaction, CSS applied the detailed visual design conceived on Figma, and HTML structured the application's content. This combination resulted in an application, showcasing Vue.js's effectiveness in application development. Our intervention was the "Changing" application, which was a scrollytelling that, in its two versions (food and pandemic), explained why and how public health guidelines are being changed. The main purpose of the "Changing" application is to explain the reasons for ongoing changes in public health guidelines, using COVID-19 and nutrition as examples.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Pandemic | Experimental | Behavioral: Changing (version: pandemic)Web page explaining the reasons for shifting recommendations in the context of a pandemic. |
| Nutrition | Active comparator | Behavioral: Changing (version: nutrition)Web page explaining the reasons for shifting recommendations in the context of nutrition. |
| Control | No intervention | –No material of information is provided |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- We will recruit participants who are aged 18 years or older. They will be able to provide written informed consent, and be able to read and understand French or English. Additionally, they should be able to use a computer.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- We will exclude participants who are younger than 18 years old, unable to provide written informed consent, unable to read or understand French or English, or unable to use a computer.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Changing (version: pandemic)The application explains that, faced with a complex situation such as a pandemic, decision-makers have to navigate through uncertainty, often without knowing exactly how the situation will evolve. Scientific research guides their choices, but early studies can sometimes prove inaccurate and require adjustments. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some initial studies showed that certain drugs could help, but more rigorous research showed that they were not effective. Over time, accumulated knowledge enables us to better understand the situation and make informed decisions. Lessons learned from past crises help to better prepare for future complex situations. | Behavioural | Pandemic |
| Changing (version: nutrition)The intervention discusses the evolving nature of scientific research on diet and health. It explains how initial studies can suggest one thing, only for later studies to offer new insights or clarify previous findings. For example, while early research linked high fat intake with heart disease, more recent studies have shown that some fats, like those in nuts, avocados, and oily fish, are actually beneficial. It emphasizes that science often advances gradually, and rigorous, long-term studies help understanding. It also points out that health recommendations are influenced by multiple factors, and over time, accumulated knowledge enables us to better understand the situation and make informed decisions. | Behavioural | Nutrition |
Primary outcome
Anti-intellectualism
Time frame: Immediately after intervention
Anti-intellectualism can be defined as "the refusal to recognize the pre-eminence of intelligence and the value of the sciences". Richard Hofstadter (1963) described anti-intellectualism generally as " a resentment and distrust of the things of the mind and those who represent it" (Hofstadter 1966). This sentiment is captured through a set of six items measuring attitudes towards various authoritative figures and institutions, including medical doctors, scientists, economists , teachers, expert and the Public Health Agency of Canada (Merkley and Loewen 2021). These attitudes are typically assessed using a Likert scale, a widely used semantic rating system in surveys that offers respondents a nuanced range of responses (typically 5 or 7 options) to gauge their perceptions, attitudes, and opinions accurately. Unlike binary "Yes" or "No" responses, this scale allows for a more detailed understanding of how individuals perceive and intercept the issues under investigation.
1 secondary outcome
Knowledge-changing
Time frame: Immediately after intervention
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 Sep 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. We will make anonymized data available on Boréalis, Université Laval's Dataverse.
Related trials for Social Perception
Recruiting
Evaluating WhatsOK Helpline for Youth With Concerns About Sexual Thoughts and Behaviors
Mental Health, Social Support
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Understanding How Peer Support Helps in Mental Health Care
No Condition
Not yet recruiting
Interventional rTMS for Improving Social Perception in Autism
Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)
Recruiting
Midwife-Led Digital Follow-Up After Cesarean Section
Postpartum Depression, Breastfeeding
Recruiting
The Effects of Oxytocin on Fairness Perception and Related Prosocial Behaviors
Healthy Adult Participants
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Changing (version: pandemic) and Changing (version: nutrition) in people with Social Perception and Psychology, run by Laval University at 1 site in Canada.
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 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: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 Sep 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 Canada. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
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?
Anti-intellectualism (time frame: Immediately after 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 9 Sep 2025.