Cancer of Colon, Cancer of Rectum
Conditions
Brief summary
Purpose: To assess the impact of taxes, warnings, and a combination of taxes and warnings on US adults' decisions to purchase products that contain red meat in an online grocery store. Procedures (methods): Participants will be recruited from Prime Panels (an online panel research company). Following online consent, participants will be assigned to one of four trial arms: 1) Control (no warning and no tax), 2) Warnings (all products that contain red meat have a health warning and environmental warning), 3) Tax (30% tax on products that contain red meat), and 4) Combined warning and tax (all products that contain red meat will have the two warnings and a 30% tax). Then, participant will enter an online grocery store reflecting their assigned arm. The participant will be instructed to complete a shopping task in the online grocery store. After completing the shopping task, participants will be redirected to an online survey and answer a series of questions about the shopping task, labels (excluding tax and control groups), and taxes (excluding warning and control groups). Questions will also include standard demographic and health related variables.
Detailed description
Participants will be recruited from Prime Panels (an online panel research company). Following online consent, participants will be randomly assigned to one of four trial arms affecting the appearance of an online grocery store. Once in the online grocery store, participants will complete a shopping task. The participants will have 9 specified items to add to their shopping cart (1 pizza, 1 burrito, Burger patties \[meat or vegetarian\], Breakfast sausages \[meat or vegetarian\], 1 frozen individual meal, 1 loaf of bread, 1 sandwich filling \[for example, ham, turkey, or peanut butter\], 1 pack of tortillas, 1 taco filling \[for example, steak, chicken, or beans\]). Participants will be informed that they will not be spending any of their own money to complete the shopping task. After completing the shopping task, participants will be redirected to a survey. They will provide self-reported responses to survey questions (e.g. perceived healthfulness from eating red meat, perceived risk of cancer from eating red meat, thinking about the health/environmental harms of food products). Participants will also answer demographic and health related questions.
Interventions
OTHERCombined Warning Labels and Tax
While completing the shopping task in the online grocery store, all products containing red meat will have the health and environmental warning labels appear next to the product image and a 30% increase in price.
OTHERControl
Participants will complete a shopping task in the online grocery store, and the products that contain red meat will not have warning labels or a 30% increase in price.
OTHERWarning Labels
While completing the shopping task in the online grocery store, the health and environmental warning labels will appear next to the image of every product that contains red meat.
OTHERTax
While completing the shopping task in the online grocery store, all products containing red meat will have a 30% increase in price.
Sponsors
Wellcome Trust
University of Edinburgh
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* 18 years or older * Consumes red meat at least once per week. * Responsible for at least 50% of grocery shopping for the household. * Lives in the United States
Exclusion criteria
* Individuals who have participated in research studies from previous aims of this research.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Count of Products That Contain Red Meat | At completion of ~15 minute shopping task | The number of products in a participant's shopping basket that contain red meat. |
| Percentage of Red Meat Containing Products | At completion of ~15 minute shopping task | The percentage of products in a participant's shopping basket that contain red meat. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive Elaboration (Health) | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Thinking about the health harms of food products while completing the shopping task. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher amount of thinking about health harms of food products. |
| Specific Perceived Environmental Risk | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Perceived environmental harm of specific red meat products (burgers, pepperoni pizza, and deli ham). Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with lower scores representing worse for the environment and higher scores representing better for the environment. |
| Perceived Cost of the Burger Product. | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Perceived cost of the burger product. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with lower scores representing less expensive and higher scores representing more expensive. |
| Perceived Cost of the Pizza Product. | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Perceived cost of the pizza product. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with lower scores representing less expensive and higher scores representing more expensive. |
| Perceived Cost of the Ham Product. | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Perceived cost of the ham product. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with lower scores representing less expensive and higher scores representing more expensive. |
| Intention to Reduce | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Intention to reduce red meat consumption in the next 30 days. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher intention to reduce red meat consumption in the next 30 days. |
| Total Saturated Fat | At completion of ~15 minute shopping task | Total grams of saturated fat of products in a participant's shopping basket. This will be calculated by adding together the total saturated fat from each product in the participant's shopping basket. Saturated fat for each product will come from the product's nutrition facts panel. All products in the store are real life products that have designated nutrition facts panels. |
| Total Sodium | At completion of ~15 minute shopping task | Total grams of sodium of products in a participant's shopping basket. This will be calculated by adding together the total sodium from each product in the participant's shopping basket. Sodium for each product will come from the product's nutrition facts panel. All products in the store are real life products that have designated nutrition facts panels. |
| Total Calories | At completion of ~15 minute shopping task | Total calories of products in a participant's shopping basket. This will be calculated by adding together the total calories from each product in the participant's shopping basket. Calories for each product will come from the product's nutrition facts panel. All products in the store are real life products that have designated nutrition facts panels. |
| Perceived Healthfulness | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Perceived healthfulness of eating red meat. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher perceived healthfulness of eating red meat. |
| Perceived Cancer Risk | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Perceived risk of colon and rectal cancer from eating red meat. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher perceived risk of colon and rectal cancer from eating red meat. |
| Perceived Environmental Risk | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Perceived risk of environmental harms from eating red meat. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher perceived risk of environmental harms from eating red meat. |
| Cognitive Elaboration (Environment) | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Thinking about the environmental harms of food products while completing the shopping task. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher amount of thinking about the environmental harms of food products. |
| Cognitive Elaboration (Price) | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Thinking about the price of food products while completing the shopping task. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher amount of thinking about the price of food products. |
| Specific Perceived Healthfulness | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Perceived healthfulness of specific red meat products (burgers, pepperoni pizza, and deli ham). Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with lower scores representing worse for health and higher scores representing better for health. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Modified Waterlander Acceptability Scale Score | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Acceptability of the online grocery store. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher amount of agreement. Acceptability of the online grocery store is measured using 3 items adapted from Waterlander et al., 2011. Responses to the 3 items will be averaged to create an acceptability score sum ranging from 3-15 then divided by the total number of questions asked (n = 3). Prompt: Say whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. I could easily find all of the food and beverages I was looking for in the online grocery store. There were enough food and beverage options in the online grocery store. This online grocery store felt like a real online grocery store. Waterlander WE, Scarpa M, Lentz D, Steenhuis IHM. The virtual supermarket: an innovative research tool to study consumer food purchasing behavior. 2011;11:589. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-589. |
| Ease of Store Use | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Ease of use of the online grocery store. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing more agreement that the online grocery store is easy to use. |
| Percentage of Participants Who Support Tax | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Support of policy for taxes on red meat products in the U.S. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a greater deal of support. Those who indicated '4' or '5' were assumed to more strongly agree to support a red meat product tax. This measure reports the percentage of those with a response of '4' or '5'. |
| Percentage of Participants Who Support Environmental Warning Label | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Support of policy for environmental warning labels on red meat products in the U.S. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a greater deal of support. Support of policy for taxes on environmental warning labels in the U.S. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a greater deal of support. Those who indicated '4' or '5' were assumed to more strongly agree to support an environmental warning label. This measure reports the percentage of participants with a response of '4' or '5'. |
| Percentage of Participants Who Support Health Warning Label | ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task | Support of policy for health warning labels on red meat products in the U.S. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a greater deal of support. Those who indicated '4' or '5' were assumed to more strongly agree to support a health warning label. This measure reports the percentage of those with a response of '4' or '5'. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Control Arm Products that contain red meat will not have warning labels or an increase in price.
Control: Participants will complete a shopping task in the online grocery store, and the products that contain red meat will not have warning labels or a 30% increase in price. | 887 |
| Warning Labels Arm The warning labels are black octagons with white text that appear next to images of products that contain red meat. One label says WARNING: Eating red meat contributes to colon and rectal cancer and the other label says WARNING: Eating red meat harms the environment.
Warning Labels: While completing the shopping task in the online grocery store, the health and environmental warning labels will appear next to the image of every product that contains red meat. | 891 |
| Tax Arm The tax is a 30% increase in the price of products that contain red meat.
Tax: While completing the shopping task in the online grocery store, all products containing red meat will have a 30% increase in price. | 874 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm The Combined Warning Labels and Tax arm features both the warning labels and tax. The warning labels are black octagons with white text that appear next to images of products that contain red meat. One label says WARNING: Eating red meat contributes to colon and rectal cancer and the other label says WARNING: Eating red meat harms the environment. The tax is a 30% increase in the price of red meat products.
Combined Warning Labels and Tax: While completing the shopping task in the online grocery store, all products containing red meat will have the health and environmental warning labels appear next to the product image and a 30% increase in price. | 866 |
| Total | 3,518 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Control Arm | Warning Labels Arm | Tax Arm | Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 48.6 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.3 | 49.2 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.7 | 50.1 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.7 | 47.4 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.2 | 48.8 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.3 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Hispanic (any race) | 83 Participants | 94 Participants | 85 Participants | 94 Participants | 356 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander only | 33 Participants | 29 Participants | 38 Participants | 31 Participants | 131 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Non-Hispanic Black or African American only | 80 Participants | 87 Participants | 76 Participants | 89 Participants | 332 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Non-Hispanic other race/multiracial | 40 Participants | 22 Participants | 33 Participants | 24 Participants | 119 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Non-Hispanic White only | 643 Participants | 654 Participants | 634 Participants | 621 Participants | 2552 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 887 Participants | 891 Participants | 874 Participants | 866 Participants | 3518 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Man | 343 Participants | 348 Participants | 342 Participants | 344 Participants | 1377 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Non-binary | 3 Participants | 5 Participants | 2 Participants | 3 Participants | 13 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Self-described | 2 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Woman | 539 Participants | 538 Participants | 530 Participants | 519 Participants | 2126 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 887 | 0 / 891 | 0 / 874 | 0 / 866 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 887 | 0 / 891 | 0 / 874 | 0 / 866 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 887 | 0 / 891 | 0 / 874 | 0 / 866 |
Outcome results
Primary
Count of Products That Contain Red Meat
The number of products in a participant's shopping basket that contain red meat.
Time frame: At completion of ~15 minute shopping task
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Count of Products That Contain Red Meat | 3.5 red meat products | Standard Deviation 1.7 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Count of Products That Contain Red Meat | 3.2 red meat products | Standard Deviation 1.8 |
| Tax Arm | Count of Products That Contain Red Meat | 3.1 red meat products | Standard Deviation 1.6 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Count of Products That Contain Red Meat | 2.7 red meat products | Standard Deviation 1.6 |
p-value: 0.002Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: 0.024Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
Primary
Percentage of Red Meat Containing Products
The percentage of products in a participant's shopping basket that contain red meat.
Time frame: At completion of ~15 minute shopping task
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Percentage of Red Meat Containing Products | 39.0 percentage of red meat items | Standard Deviation 18.6 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Percentage of Red Meat Containing Products | 36.1 percentage of red meat items | Standard Deviation 19.8 |
| Tax Arm | Percentage of Red Meat Containing Products | 34.0 percentage of red meat items | Standard Deviation 18 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Percentage of Red Meat Containing Products | 30.8 percentage of red meat items | Standard Deviation 18.5 |
p-value: 0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: 0.022Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
Secondary
Cognitive Elaboration (Environment)
Thinking about the environmental harms of food products while completing the shopping task. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher amount of thinking about the environmental harms of food products.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Environment) | 2.2 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Environment) | 2.4 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
| Tax Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Environment) | 2.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Environment) | 2.4 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Cognitive Elaboration (Health)
Thinking about the health harms of food products while completing the shopping task. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher amount of thinking about health harms of food products.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Health) | 2.7 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.3 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Health) | 2.8 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
| Tax Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Health) | 2.6 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Health) | 2.8 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Cognitive Elaboration (Price)
Thinking about the price of food products while completing the shopping task. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher amount of thinking about the price of food products.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Price) | 4.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Price) | 4.0 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Tax Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Price) | 4.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Cognitive Elaboration (Price) | 4.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Intention to Reduce
Intention to reduce red meat consumption in the next 30 days. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher intention to reduce red meat consumption in the next 30 days.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Intention to Reduce | 2.4 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Intention to Reduce | 2.5 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
| Tax Arm | Intention to Reduce | 2.3 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Intention to Reduce | 2.5 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Perceived Cancer Risk
Perceived risk of colon and rectal cancer from eating red meat. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher perceived risk of colon and rectal cancer from eating red meat.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Perceived Cancer Risk | 2.8 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Perceived Cancer Risk | 3.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Tax Arm | Perceived Cancer Risk | 2.7 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Perceived Cancer Risk | 3.0 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Perceived Cost of the Burger Product.
Perceived cost of the burger product. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with lower scores representing less expensive and higher scores representing more expensive.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Perceived Cost of the Burger Product. | 3.6 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Perceived Cost of the Burger Product. | 3.6 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Tax Arm | Perceived Cost of the Burger Product. | 3.9 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Perceived Cost of the Burger Product. | 3.9 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Perceived Cost of the Ham Product.
Perceived cost of the ham product. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with lower scores representing less expensive and higher scores representing more expensive.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Perceived Cost of the Ham Product. | 3.2 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Perceived Cost of the Ham Product. | 3.2 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Tax Arm | Perceived Cost of the Ham Product. | 3.5 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Perceived Cost of the Ham Product. | 3.5 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Perceived Cost of the Pizza Product.
Perceived cost of the pizza product. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with lower scores representing less expensive and higher scores representing more expensive.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Perceived Cost of the Pizza Product. | 2.8 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Perceived Cost of the Pizza Product. | 2.8 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Tax Arm | Perceived Cost of the Pizza Product. | 3.0 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Perceived Cost of the Pizza Product. | 3.0 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Perceived Environmental Risk
Perceived risk of environmental harms from eating red meat. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher perceived risk of environmental harms from eating red meat.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Perceived Environmental Risk | 2.7 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Perceived Environmental Risk | 2.8 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Tax Arm | Perceived Environmental Risk | 2.6 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Perceived Environmental Risk | 2.8 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Perceived Healthfulness
Perceived healthfulness of eating red meat. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher perceived healthfulness of eating red meat.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Perceived Healthfulness | 3.3 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Perceived Healthfulness | 3.0 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Tax Arm | Perceived Healthfulness | 3.3 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Perceived Healthfulness | 3.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Specific Perceived Environmental Risk
Perceived environmental harm of specific red meat products (burgers, pepperoni pizza, and deli ham). Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with lower scores representing worse for the environment and higher scores representing better for the environment.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Specific Perceived Environmental Risk | 2.9 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.7 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Specific Perceived Environmental Risk | 2.7 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.8 |
| Tax Arm | Specific Perceived Environmental Risk | 2.9 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.7 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Specific Perceived Environmental Risk | 2.8 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.8 |
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Specific Perceived Healthfulness
Perceived healthfulness of specific red meat products (burgers, pepperoni pizza, and deli ham). Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with lower scores representing worse for health and higher scores representing better for health.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Specific Perceived Healthfulness | 2.9 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.8 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Specific Perceived Healthfulness | 2.7 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Tax Arm | Specific Perceived Healthfulness | 2.9 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.8 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Specific Perceived Healthfulness | 2.7 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Total Calories
Total calories of products in a participant's shopping basket. This will be calculated by adding together the total calories from each product in the participant's shopping basket. Calories for each product will come from the product's nutrition facts panel. All products in the store are real life products that have designated nutrition facts panels.
Time frame: At completion of ~15 minute shopping task
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Total Calories | 9844.4 kcal | Standard Deviation 3098 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Total Calories | 10051.6 kcal | Standard Deviation 3508.1 |
| Tax Arm | Total Calories | 9661.1 kcal | Standard Deviation 3151.8 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Total Calories | 9532.5 kcal | Standard Deviation 2843.3 |
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Total Saturated Fat
Total grams of saturated fat of products in a participant's shopping basket. This will be calculated by adding together the total saturated fat from each product in the participant's shopping basket. Saturated fat for each product will come from the product's nutrition facts panel. All products in the store are real life products that have designated nutrition facts panels.
Time frame: At completion of ~15 minute shopping task
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Total Saturated Fat | 156.1 grams | Standard Deviation 91.9 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Total Saturated Fat | 156.1 grams | Standard Deviation 82.2 |
| Tax Arm | Total Saturated Fat | 145.8 grams | Standard Deviation 78.6 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Total Saturated Fat | 143.4 grams | Standard Deviation 83.3 |
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
Secondary
Total Sodium
Total grams of sodium of products in a participant's shopping basket. This will be calculated by adding together the total sodium from each product in the participant's shopping basket. Sodium for each product will come from the product's nutrition facts panel. All products in the store are real life products that have designated nutrition facts panels.
Time frame: At completion of ~15 minute shopping task
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Total Sodium | 18.5 grams | Standard Deviation 11.8 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Total Sodium | 18.2 grams | Standard Deviation 7 |
| Tax Arm | Total Sodium | 17.9 grams | Standard Deviation 9.6 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Total Sodium | 18.2 grams | Standard Deviation 12 |
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
Other Pre-specified
Ease of Store Use
Ease of use of the online grocery store. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing more agreement that the online grocery store is easy to use.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Ease of Store Use | 4.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Ease of Store Use | 4.0 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Tax Arm | Ease of Store Use | 4.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Ease of Store Use | 4.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
Other Pre-specified
Mean Modified Waterlander Acceptability Scale Score
Acceptability of the online grocery store. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a higher amount of agreement. Acceptability of the online grocery store is measured using 3 items adapted from Waterlander et al., 2011. Responses to the 3 items will be averaged to create an acceptability score sum ranging from 3-15 then divided by the total number of questions asked (n = 3). Prompt: Say whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. I could easily find all of the food and beverages I was looking for in the online grocery store. There were enough food and beverage options in the online grocery store. This online grocery store felt like a real online grocery store. Waterlander WE, Scarpa M, Lentz D, Steenhuis IHM. The virtual supermarket: an innovative research tool to study consumer food purchasing behavior. 2011;11:589. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-589.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Mean Modified Waterlander Acceptability Scale Score | 4.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.8 |
| Warning Labels Arm | Mean Modified Waterlander Acceptability Scale Score | 4.0 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Tax Arm | Mean Modified Waterlander Acceptability Scale Score | 4.1 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.8 |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Mean Modified Waterlander Acceptability Scale Score | 4.0 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
Other Pre-specified
Percentage of Participants Who Support Environmental Warning Label
Support of policy for environmental warning labels on red meat products in the U.S. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a greater deal of support. Support of policy for taxes on environmental warning labels in the U.S. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a greater deal of support. Those who indicated '4' or '5' were assumed to more strongly agree to support an environmental warning label. This measure reports the percentage of participants with a response of '4' or '5'.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Environmental Warning Label | 40.20 percentage of participants |
| Warning Labels Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Environmental Warning Label | 44.87 percentage of participants |
| Tax Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Environmental Warning Label | 33.14 percentage of participants |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Environmental Warning Label | 44.26 percentage of participants |
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Other Pre-specified
Percentage of Participants Who Support Health Warning Label
Support of policy for health warning labels on red meat products in the U.S. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a greater deal of support. Those who indicated '4' or '5' were assumed to more strongly agree to support a health warning label. This measure reports the percentage of those with a response of '4' or '5'.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Health Warning Label | 42.13 percentage of participants |
| Warning Labels Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Health Warning Label | 49.38 percentage of participants |
| Tax Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Health Warning Label | 37.86 percentage of participants |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Health Warning Label | 48.44 percentage of participants |
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Other Pre-specified
Percentage of Participants Who Support Tax
Support of policy for taxes on red meat products in the U.S. Likert response options are on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher scores representing a greater deal of support. Those who indicated '4' or '5' were assumed to more strongly agree to support a red meat product tax. This measure reports the percentage of those with a response of '4' or '5'.
Time frame: ~15 minutes post-test computer survey following the ~15 minute shopping task
Population: Assessed for all participants who provided response
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Tax | 21.40 percentage of participants |
| Warning Labels Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Tax | 22.44 percentage of participants |
| Tax Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Tax | 15.77 percentage of participants |
| Combined Warning Labels and Tax Arm | Percentage of Participants Who Support Tax | 21.78 percentage of participants |
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: >0.05Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear