Food Selection
Conditions
Keywords
health, environment, sustainability, food choices, dietary substitutions, diet, emerging adults
Brief summary
The aim of this study is to examine emerging adults' responses to dietary substitution messages about health, the environment, or both health and the environment.
Detailed description
This online study will examine emerging adults' responses to dietary substitution messages about 4 different topics. Participants will be randomized to 1 of 4 topic arms: 1) Control (neutral topic, not related to health or the environment); 2) Health topic; 3) Environment topic; 4) Health and Environment topic. Participants will view messages about each of 4 dietary substitutions: replacing red meat with chicken or vegetarian options; replacing dairy milk with non-dairy milk; replacing juice with whole fruit; and replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with water. For each dietary substitution, participants will view 2 messages about their assigned topic, with the 2 messages shown in random order. Participants will rate each message on perceived message effectiveness (primary outcome).
Interventions
BEHAVIORALHealth messages
Participants view messages about the health impacts of certain dietary substitutions.
BEHAVIORALEnvironmental messages
Participants view messages about the environmental impacts of certain dietary substitutions.
BEHAVIORALHealth and environmental messages
Participants view messages about the health and environmental impacts of certain dietary substitutions.
BEHAVIORALNeutral messages
Participants view neutral messages unrelated to the health and environmental impacts of certain dietary substitutions.
Sponsors
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
Stanford University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 25 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Age between 18-25 years * Reside in the United States * Ability to complete a survey in English
Exclusion criteria
* Older than 25 years; younger than 18 years * Reside outside of the United States * Unable to complete a survey in English
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived Message Effectiveness | Survey questions administered after participant viewed each message; overall survey took up to 20 minutes | Participants will rate each message on perceived message effectiveness (PME) for encouraging participants to make the target dietary substitution. PME will be assessed with 4 items \[the text shown in brackets will be tailored to each substitution\]: 1. How much does this message discourage you from wanting to \[eat beef and pork / drink juice / drink cow's milk / drink sugary drinks\]? 2. How much does this message make \[eating beef and pork, etc.\] seem unpleasant to you? 3. How much does this message make you concerned about the effects of \[eating beef and pork, etc.\]? 4. How much does this message make you want to \[eat chicken or vegetarian options instead of beef and pork, etc.\]? The response options for each item are: 1=Not at all, 2=Very little, 3=Somewhat, 4=Quite a bit, 5=A great deal. Investigators will average responses to these 4 items to create a perceived message effectiveness score. Higher scores indicated higher perceived message effectiveness. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Health Messages Messages shown will be related to the health impacts of making certain dietary substitutions (replacing beef with chicken and vegetarian entrees; replacing juice with whole fruit; replacing dairy milk with non-dairy milk; replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with water).
Health messages: Participants view messages about the health impacts of certain dietary substitutions. | 437 |
| Environment Messages Messages shown will be related to the environmental impacts of making certain dietary substitutions (replacing beef with chicken and vegetarian entrees; replacing juice with whole fruit; replacing dairy milk with non-dairy milk; replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with water).
Environmental messages: Participants view messages about the environmental impacts of certain dietary substitutions. | 441 |
| Health and Environment Messages Messages shown will be related to the health and environmental impacts of making certain dietary substitutions (replacing beef with chicken and vegetarian entrees; replacing juice with whole fruit; replacing dairy milk with non-dairy milk; replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with water).
Health and environmental messages: Participants view messages about the health and environmental impacts of certain dietary substitutions. | 424 |
| Neutral Messages Messages shown will be neutral and unrelated to the health or environmental impacts of making certain dietary substitutions (replacing beef with chicken and vegetarian entrees; replacing juice with whole fruit; replacing dairy milk with non-dairy milk; replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with water).
Neutral messages: Participants view neutral messages unrelated to the health and environmental impacts of certain dietary substitutions. | 430 |
| Total | 1,732 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Health Messages | Environment Messages | Health and Environment Messages | Neutral Messages | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 437 Participants | 441 Participants | 424 Participants | 430 Participants | 1732 Participants |
| Age, Continuous | 21.8 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.2 | 22.0 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.3 | 21.9 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.2 | 21.7 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.3 | 21.8 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.2 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 55 Participants | 60 Participants | 80 Participants | 76 Participants | 271 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 382 Participants | 381 Participants | 344 Participants | 354 Participants | 1461 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 6 Participants | 5 Participants | 7 Participants | 11 Participants | 29 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 17 Participants | 9 Participants | 17 Participants | 9 Participants | 52 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 55 Participants | 50 Participants | 58 Participants | 56 Participants | 219 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 28 Participants | 30 Participants | 20 Participants | 23 Participants | 101 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 2 Participants | 0 Participants | 3 Participants | 1 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 10 Participants | 15 Participants | 17 Participants | 15 Participants | 57 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 319 Participants | 332 Participants | 302 Participants | 315 Participants | 1268 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 437 participants | 441 participants | 424 participants | 430 participants | 1732 participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Gender Female | 226 Participants | 226 Participants | 207 Participants | 215 Participants | 874 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Gender Male | 196 Participants | 210 Participants | 207 Participants | 205 Participants | 818 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Gender Non-binary or another gender | 15 Participants | 5 Participants | 10 Participants | 10 Participants | 40 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 / 437 | 0 / 441 | 0 / 424 | 0 / 430 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 437 | 0 / 441 | 0 / 424 | 0 / 430 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 437 | 0 / 441 | 0 / 424 | 0 / 430 |
Outcome results
Primary
Perceived Message Effectiveness
Participants will rate each message on perceived message effectiveness (PME) for encouraging participants to make the target dietary substitution. PME will be assessed with 4 items \[the text shown in brackets will be tailored to each substitution\]: 1. How much does this message discourage you from wanting to \[eat beef and pork / drink juice / drink cow's milk / drink sugary drinks\]? 2. How much does this message make \[eating beef and pork, etc.\] seem unpleasant to you? 3. How much does this message make you concerned about the effects of \[eating beef and pork, etc.\]? 4. How much does this message make you want to \[eat chicken or vegetarian options instead of beef and pork, etc.\]? The response options for each item are: 1=Not at all, 2=Very little, 3=Somewhat, 4=Quite a bit, 5=A great deal. Investigators will average responses to these 4 items to create a perceived message effectiveness score. Higher scores indicated higher perceived message effectiveness.
Time frame: Survey questions administered after participant viewed each message; overall survey took up to 20 minutes
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health Messages | Perceived Message Effectiveness | 2.94 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.95 |
| Environment Messages | Perceived Message Effectiveness | 2.83 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.01 |
| Health and Environment Messages | Perceived Message Effectiveness | 2.98 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.93 |
| Neutral Messages | Perceived Message Effectiveness | 1.69 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.98 |
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the health messages would not elicit different levels of perceived message effectiveness compared to the neutral messages.p-value: <0.00195% CI: [1.13, 1.37]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the environment messages would not elicit different perceived message effectiveness than the control messages.p-value: <0.00195% CI: [1.03, 1.26]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the health and environment messages would not elicit different perceived message effectiveness than the control messages.p-value: <0.00195% CI: [1.17, 1.41]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.189295% CI: [-0.018, 0.223]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.4795% CI: [-0.17, 0.08]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.05195% CI: [-0.27, -0.03]Mixed Models Analysis