Search

Health warning labels (HWLs) show promise in reducing motivation towards energy-dense snack foods. Understanding the underlying mechanisms could optimise their effectiveness. In two experimental studies in general population samples (Study 1 n=90; Study 2 n=1382), we compared the effects of HWLs and irrelevant aversive labels (IALs) on implicit (approach) motivation towards unhealthy snacks, using an approach-avoidance task (Study 1), and a manikin task (Study 2). We also assessed explicit motivation towards unhealthy snacks using food selection tasks. We examined whether labelling effects on motivation arose from the creation of outcome-dependent associations between the food and its health consequences or from simple, non-specific aversive associations. Both label types reduced motivation towards snack foods but only when the label was physically present. HWLs and IALs showed similar effects on implicit motivation, although HWLs reduced explicit motivation more than IALs. Thus, aversive HWLs appear to act both through low level associative mechanisms affecting implicit motivation, and by additionally emphasizing explicit causal links to health outcomes thereby affecting explicitly motivated choice behaviours.

Background Observational evidence suggests that cigarette pack size – the number of cigarettes in a single pack – is associated with consumption but experimental evidence of a causal relationship is lacking. The tobacco industry is introducing increasingly large packs, in the absence of maximum cigarette pack size regulation. In Australia, the minimum pack size is 20 but packs of up to 50 cigarettes are available. We aimed to estimate the impact on smoking of reducing cigarette pack sizes from ≥25 to 20 cigarettes per pack. Method A two-stage adaptive parallel group RCT in which Australian smokers who usually purchase packs containing ≥25 cigarettes were randomised to use only packs containing either 20 (intervention) or their usual packs (control) for four weeks. The primary outcome, the average number of cigarettes smoked per day, was measured through collecting all finished cigarette packs, labelled with the number of cigarettes participants smoked. An interim sample size re-estimation was used to evaluate the possibility of detecting a meaningful difference in the primary outcome. Results The interim analysis, conducted when 124 participants had been randomised, suggested 1122 additional participants needed to be randomised for sufficient power to detect a meaningful effect. This exceeded pre-specified criteria for feasible recruitment, and data collection was terminated accordingly. Analysis of complete data (n = 79) indicated that the mean cigarettes smoked per day was 15.9 (SD = 8.5) in the intervention arm and 16.8 (SD = 6.7) among controls (difference − 0.9: 95%CI = − 4.3, 2.6). Conclusion It remains unclear whether reducing cigarette pack sizes from ≥25 to 20 cigarettes reduces cigarette consumption. Importantly, the results of this study provide no evidence that capping cigarette pack sizes would be ineffective at reducing smoking. The limitations identified in this study can inform a more efficient RCT, which is urgently required to address the dearth of experimental evidence on the impact of large cigarette pack sizes on smoking. Trial registration 10.1186/ISRCTN34202533

Although there is considerable evidence for the portion-size effect and its potential impact on health, much of this has not been successfully applied to help consumers reduce portion sizes. The objective of this review is to provide an update on the strength of evidence supporting strategies with potential to reduce portion sizes across individuals and eating contexts. Three levels of action are considered: food-level strategies (targeting commercial snack and meal portion sizes, packaging, food labels, tableware, and food sensory properties), individual-level strategies (targeting eating rate and bite size, portion norms, plate-cleaning tendencies, and cognitive processes), and population approaches (targeting the physical, social, and economic environment and health policy). Food- and individual-level strategies are associated with small to moderate effects; however, in isolation, none seem to have sufficient impact on food intake to reverse the portion-size effect and its consequences. Wider changes to the portion-size environment will be necessary to support individual- and food-level strategies leading to portion control.

BACKGROUND: Placing food further away from people decreases likelihood of consumption ("Proximity Effect"). However, it is unclear how proximity affects consumption when both healthier and less healthy foods are available and cognitive resource for self-control is limited. AIMS: To test the hypothesis that when both healthier (raisins) and less healthy (chocolate M&Ms) foods are available, placing less healthy food far, rather than near, increases the likelihood that healthier food is consumed. METHODS: General population participants (N = 248) were all put under cognitive load and randomised to one of four groups: 1. Raisins near (20 cm), M&Ms far (70 cm); 2. Both foods near; 3. M&Ms near, raisins far; 4. Both far. PRIMARY OUTCOME: proportions of participants consuming raisins and M&Ms, respectively. RESULTS: The results did not support the primary hypothesis: when healthier and less healthy foods were both available, placing M&Ms far, rather than near, did not increase likelihood of consuming raisins (OR = 1.54, p = .432). Regardless of the M&Ms proximity, likelihood of consuming raisins was unaffected by the raisins' proximity (62.9%(near) vs. 56.5%(far) OR = 0.61, p = .211). Likelihood of consuming M&Ms non-significantly decreased when they were far and raisins were near, and when both foods were far (OR = 2.83, p = .057). Likelihood of consuming M&Ms was affected by M&Ms proximity, being higher when near (68.3%) than far (55.6%), OR = 0.39, p = .015. Indices of cognitive load impact (higher vs lower) were unrelated to consumption of either food. CONCLUSIONS: Likelihood of consuming a healthier food was unaffected by its proximity and that of a less healthy food. By contrast, likelihood of consuming a less healthy food was influenced by its proximity and possibly by that of a healthier food. These effects need replication in studies designed to detect smaller effect sizes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered online with ISRCTN (ISRCTN11740813).

Background Straight-sided glasses can slow the rate of lager consumption in a laboratory setting compared with curved glasses. Slower drinking rates may lower overall alcohol consumption. Glass shape is therefore a potential target for intervention. The aim of this randomised crossover trial was to estimate the impact of serving draught beer and cider in straight-sided glasses, compared with usual, predominantly curved glasses, on alcohol sales for on-site consumption in bars. Methods Twenty-four bars in England completed two intervention periods (A) and two control periods (B) in a randomised order: 1) BABA; 2) BAAB; 3) ABBA; or 4) ABAB. Each period lasted two weeks and involved serving draught beer and cider in either straight-sided glasses (A) or the venue's usual glasses (≥75% curved; B). The primary outcome was the mean volume (in litres) of draught beer and cider sold weekly, compared between A and B periods using a paired-samples t-test on aggregate data. A regression model adjusted for season, order, special events, and busyness. Findings Mean weekly volume sales of draught beer and cider was 690·9 L (SD 491·3 L) across A periods and 732·5 L (SD 501·0 L) across B periods. The adjusted mean difference (A minus B) was 8·9 L per week (95% CI -45·5 to 63·3; p = 0·737). Interpretation This study provides no clear evidence that using straight-sided glasses, compared with usual, predominantly curved glasses, reduces the volume of draught beer and cider sold for on-site consumption in bars., Graphical abstract Image 1, HIGHLIGHTS • Straight-sided glasses do not reduce beer sales in bars versus usual glasses. • Usual beer glasses are predominantly curved, but there are many different types. • Other interventions may warrant attention, such as reducing serving sizes.

Background: Increasing the availability of lower energy foods increases their selection. The current studies examine the extent to which this effect could be mediated by social norms – assessed by perceived popularity of foods – which may be implied by their relative availability. Methods: Study 1 (Online): 2340 UK adults estimated the perceived popularity of lower energy products. For each of eight trials, participants were randomised to one of six groups (between-subjects 3x2) to see photos of cafeteria shelves varying in the availability of lower energy options (1/4 lower energy; 1/2 lower energy; 3/4 lower energy) and fullness of shelves (fuller; emptier).Study 2 (Laboratory): 139 English adults were asked to select a snack. Participants were randomised to select from trays varying in the availability of the lower energy option (1/3 lower energy; 2/3 lower energy) and fullness of tray (fuller; emptier). Results: Study 1: Evidence for an interaction was found, such that when shelves were full, a higher proportion of lower energy options led to greater perceived popularity of lower energy products (1/4 lower energy: 40.9% (95%CIs: 40.1,41.8); 3/4 lower energy: 47.2% (46.3,48.0)), whereas when shelves were emptier, a higher proportion of lower energy options led to lower perceived popularity (1/4 lower energy: 48.4% (47.5,49.2); 3/4 lower energy: 39.2% (38.3,40.0)).Study 2: When the tray was fuller, participants were more likely – albeit non-significantly (main effects: p=0.05; interactions: p=0.07) – to select a lower energy snack when 2/3 of the available snacks were lower energy (35.7% (18.5,52.9)) than when 1/3 were lower energy (15.4% (4.2,26.5)). For emptier trays, lower energy selections decreased as the relative availability of lower energy snacks increased (1/3 lower energy snacks: 36.0% (17.9,54.1); 2/3 lower energy snacks: 27.8% (13.9,41.7)). Conclusions:These studies provide novel evidence that social norms may mediate the impact of availability on food selection. In addition, they suggest that the effect of availability may vary in different contexts, moderated by display layout through its impact on perceived product popularity. Trial registration. ISRCTN: ISRCTN10512908; 31/01/2020

BackgroundExcessive consumption of energy-dense food increases the risk of obesity, which in turn increases the risk of non-communicable diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and most non-smoking-related cancers. Health warning labels (HWLs) that communicate the adverse health consequences of excess energy consumption could reduce intake of energy-dense foods. The aim of the current study was to estimate the impact on selection of energy-dense snacks of (a) image-and-text HWLs (b) text-only HWLs and (c) calorie information. Methods A between-subjects, 3 (HWL: image-and-text, text-only, no label) x 2 (calorie information: present, absent), factorial experimental design. Participants (N=4,134) were randomised to view a selection of energy-dense and non-energy-dense snacks with one of five label types or no label. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants selecting an energy-dense snack in a hypothetical vending machine task.ResultsThe proportion of participants selecting an energy-dense snack was reduced in all label groups, relative to the no label group (image-and-text HWL: 37%; image-and-text HWL with calories: 38%; text-only HWL: 48%; text-only HWL with calories: 44%; calories only: 54%; no label: 59%). Participants were least likely to select an energy-dense snack in the image-and-text HWL group and most likely in the no label group (OR = 0.46, 95%CI = 0.40, 0.54, p < 0.001).Conclusions Health warning labels – particularly those including an image and text - have the potential to reduce selection of energy-dense snacks in an online setting. Their impact on selection and consumption in real-world settings awaits testing.Trial registration: The study protocol (https://osf.io/6n7h9, registered: April 1st 2019) and data analysis plan (https://osf.io/zvrs5) were pre-registered on the Open Science Framework. KeywordsHealth warning labels, pictorial labels, graphic warnings, snacks, food, choice architecture, energy-dense

Background Increasing the availability of healthier food increases its selection and consumption. However, there is an absence of evidence related to alcohol. This study aimed to estimate the impact of increasing the absolute and relative availability of non-alcoholic compared to alcoholic drinks on selection. We also assessed whether effects were modified by cognitive resource. Methods UK adult weekly alcohol consumers (n = 808) were recruited to an online experiment with a hypothetical drink selection task. Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions, in a 4 (availability) × 2 (cognitive resource) factorial design. The four availability conditions were: i. Reference 1 (two non-alcoholic, two alcoholic drinks); ii. Reference 2 (four non-alcoholic, four alcoholic drinks); iii. Increased non-alcoholic drinks (six non-alcoholic, two alcoholic drinks); iv. Increased alcoholic drinks (two non-alcoholic, six alcoholic drinks). The two cognitive resource conditions were: a. Low (high time pressure); b. High (low time pressure). Logistic regression was used to assess selection of a non-alcoholic drink. Results 49% of participants selected a non-alcoholic drink in the Increased non-alcoholic drinks condition, compared to 36% in Reference 1, 39% in Reference 2, and 26% in the Increased alcoholic drinks condition. Non-alcoholic drink selection was similar between Reference 1 and 2 when the total number of drinks increased (absolute availability) but the proportion of non-alcoholic compared to alcoholic drinks (relative availability) was unchanged (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.77, 1.73). In contrast, the odds of selecting a non-alcoholic drink were 71% higher when both absolute and relative availability of non-alcoholic compared to alcoholic drinks was increased from Reference 1 to the Increased non-alcoholic drinks condition (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.15, 2.54), and 48% higher when increased from Reference 2 to the Increased non-alcoholic drinks condition (OR: 1.48, 95% CI 0.99, 2.19). There was no evidence of an effect of cognitive resource. Conclusions Greater availability of non-alcoholic drinks, compared to alcoholic drinks, increased their online selection, an effect that may be larger when changing their relative availability, i.e., increasing the proportion of non-alcoholic drinks. Naturalistic studies are needed to determine the impact of availability interventions on reducing alcohol purchasing and consumption.

Aims:- \ud \ud Evidence from tobacco research suggests that health warning labels (HWLs) depicting the adverse consequences of consumption change smoking behaviours, with image-and-text (also known as ‘pictorial’ or ‘graphic’) HWLs most effective. There is an absence of evidence concerning the potential impact of HWLs placed on alcohol products on selection of those products. This study aimed to obtain a preliminary assessment of the possible impact of (i) image-and-text, (ii) text-only, and (iii) image-only HWLs on selection of alcoholic versus non-alcoholic drinks.\ud Design:- \ud \ud A between-subjects randomised experiment with a 2 (image: present versus absent) × 2 (text: present versus absent) factorial design.\ud Setting:- \ud \ud The study was conducted on the online survey platform Qualtrics.\ud Participants:- \ud \ud Participants (n = 6024) were adults over the age of 18 who consumed beer or wine regularly (i.e. at least once a week), recruited through a market research agency.\ud Interventions:- \ud \ud Participants were randomised to one of four groups varying in the HWL displayed on the packaging of alcoholic drinks: (i) image-and-text HWL; (ii) text-only HWL; (iii) image-only HWL; and (iv) no HWL. HWLs depicted bowel cancer, breast cancer and liver cancer, which were each displayed twice across six alcoholic drinks. Each group viewed six alcoholic and six non-alcoholic drinks and selected one drink that they would like to consume.\ud Measurements:- \ud \ud The primary outcome was the proportion of participants selecting an alcoholic versus a non-alcoholic drink.\ud Findings:- \ud \ud Alcoholic drink selection was lower for all HWL types compared with no HWL (image-and-text: 56%; image-only: 49%; text-only: 61%; no HWL: 77%), with selection lowest for HWLs that included an image. Image-and-text HWLs reduced the odds of selecting an alcoholic drink compared with text-only HWLs (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.69, 0.92), but increased the odds of selecting an alcoholic drink compared with image-only HWLs (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.16, 1.55).\ud Conclusions:- \ud \ud Health warning labels communicating the increased risk of cancers associated with alcohol consumption reduced selection of alcoholic versus non-alcoholic drinks in a hypothetical choice task in an online setting; labels displaying images had the largest effect. Their impact in laboratory and real-world field settings using physical products awaits investigation.

BackgroundReducing alcohol consumption across populations would prevent many non-communicable diseases. Large packages increase food and non-alcoholic drink consumption and large glasses increase wine consumption. Smaller bottles may reduce alcohol consumption but their impact is uncertain. This study aims to (i) explore the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a large-scale randomised study to assess the impact of bottle size on in-home wine consumption and (ii) estimate the effect size and variance of the intervention on consumption to inform the design of future studies.MethodsCross-over randomised study in which 16 households in Cambridge, England, consuming at least two 750-ml bottles of wine each week, received a pre-set volume of wine biweekly for 4 weeks, in 750-ml and 375-ml bottles, in random order. Consumption was assessed by recording the number of empty and partially full bottles at the end of each biweekly period. At the end of the study, household representatives were interviewed about their experiences of participating in the study.ResultsThe study procedures proved feasible. Comparable to similar trials, 14% of identified eligible households (18/125) consented to participate in the study. Attrition between consent and study completion was 11% (2/18) and 0% between study periods and 13% of households (2/16) correctly identified the study aim. The study procedures were considered acceptable. After adjusting for guest and out-of-home consumption, the difference in consumption between the 750-ml (3385.2 ml; SD = 1698.5) and 375-ml bottles (3376.7 ml; SD = 1719.0) was 8.4 ml (SD = 1235.4; 95%CI − 596.9, 613.8). Results suggest a possible order effect, with households receiving the 375-ml bottles first consuming more wine out of the 750-ml bottles and vice versa. This might also reflect an increase in consumption with study duration. Households receiving the 375-ml bottles first (6315.9 ml; SD = 3293.5) also drank less wine overall than those receiving the 750-ml bottles first (7335.4 ml; SD = 3735.4).DiscussionThe findings support the feasibility and acceptability of running a large-scale randomised study to assess the impact of bottle size on in-home wine consumption. Due to the heterogeneous patterning of results, a future study will be powered using the variance observed in the current study to detect a meaningful reduction of 250 ml of wine when consumed from smaller compared with larger bottles.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework (OSF):rmk43; May 23, 2017.

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are one of the largest added sugar sources to diets in the UK and USA. Health warning labels reduce hypothetical selection of SSBs in online studies but uncertainty surrounds their impact on selection of drinks for consumption. Calorie information labels are also promising but their impact on SSB selection is unclear. This laboratory study assessed the impact on SSB selection of ‘on-pack’ labels placed directly on physical products: i.a pictorial health warning label depicting an adverse health consequence of excess sugar consumption; and ii.calorie information labels. Potential moderation of any effects by socio-economic position (SEP) was also examined. Participants - 401 adults, resident in England, approximately half of whom were of lower SEP and half of higher SEP, were asked to select a drink from a range of two non-SSBs and four SSBs (subsequent to completing a separate study assessing the effects of food availability on snack selection). The drinks included ‘on-pack’ labels according to randomisation: Group 1: pictorial health warning label on SSBs; Group 2: calorie information label on all drinks; Group 3: no additional label. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants selecting an SSB. Compared to not having additional labels (39%), neither the pictorial health warning label (40%) nor calorie information labels (43%) affected the proportion of participants selecting an SSB. Lower SEP participants (45%) were more likely to select an SSB compared to those of higher SEP (35%), but SEP did not moderate the impact of labels on drink selection. In conclusion, pictorial health warning labels may be less effective in reducing SSB selection in lab-based compared with online settings, or depending on label design and placement. Findings suggest that effects might be absent when choosing from real products with actual ‘on-pack’ labels, positioned in a ‘realistic’ manner. Field studies are needed to further assess the impact of ‘on-pack’ SSB warning labels in real-world settings to rule out the possible contribution of study design factors.

Background Overconsumption of food, alcohol, and tobacco products increases the risk of non‐communicable diseases. Interventions to change characteristics of physical micro‐environments where people may select or consume these products ‐ including shops, restaurants, workplaces, and schools – are of considerable public health policy and research interest. This review addresses two types of intervention within such environments: altering the availability (the range and/or amount of options) of these products, or their proximity (the distance at which they are positioned) to potential consumers. Objectives 1. To assess the impact on selection and consumption of altering the availability or proximity of (a) food (including non‐alcoholic beverages), (b) alcohol, and (c) tobacco products. 2. To assess the extent to which the impact of these interventions is modified by characteristics of: i. studies, ii. interventions, and iii. participants. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and seven other published or grey literature databases, as well as trial registries and key websites, up to 23 July 2018, followed by citation searches. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials with between‐participants (parallel group) or within‐participants (cross‐over) designs. Eligible studies compared effects of exposure to at least two different levels of availability of a product or its proximity, and included a measure of selection or consumption of the manipulated product. Data collection and analysis We used a novel semi‐automated screening workflow and applied standard Cochrane methods to select eligible studies, collect data, and assess risk of bias. In separate analyses for availability interventions and proximity interventions, we combined results using random‐effects meta‐analysis and meta‐regression models to estimate summary effect sizes (as standardised mean differences (SMDs)) and to investigate associations between summary effect sizes and selected study, intervention, or participant characteristics. We rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome using GRADE. Main results We included 24 studies, with the majority (20/24) giving concerns about risk of bias. All of the included studies investigated food products; none investigated alcohol or tobacco. The majority were conducted in laboratory settings (14/24), with adult participants (17/24), and used between‐participants designs (19/24). All studies were conducted in high‐income countries, predominantly in the USA (14/24). Six studies investigated availability interventions, of which two changed the absolute number of different options available, and four altered the relative proportion of less‐healthy (to healthier) options. Most studies (4/6) manipulated snack foods or drinks. For selection outcomes, meta‐analysis of three comparisons from three studies (n = 154) found that exposure to fewer options resulted in a large reduction in selection of the targeted food(s): SMD −1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) −1.90 to −0.37) (low certainty evidence). For consumption outcomes, meta‐analysis of three comparisons from two studies (n = 150) found that exposure to fewer options resulted in a moderate reduction in consumption of those foods, but with considerable uncertainty: SMD −0.55 (95% CI −1.27 to 0.18) (low certainty evidence). Eighteen studies investigated proximity interventions. Most (14/18) changed the distance at which a snack food or drink was placed from the participants, whilst four studies changed the order of meal components encountered along a line. For selection outcomes, only one study with one comparison (n = 41) was identified, which found that food placed farther away resulted in a moderate reduction in its selection: SMD −0.65 (95% CI −1.29 to −0.01) (very low certainty evidence). For consumption outcomes, meta‐analysis of 15 comparisons from 12 studies (n = 1098) found that exposure to food placed farther away resulted in a moderate reduction in its consumption: SMD −0.60 (95% CI −0.84 to −0.36) (low certainty evidence). Meta‐regression analyses indicated that this effect was greater: the farther away the product was placed; when only the targeted product(s) was available; when participants were of low deprivation status; and when the study was at high risk of bias. Authors' conclusions The current evidence suggests that changing the number of available food options or altering the positioning of foods could contribute to meaningful changes in behaviour, justifying policy actions to promote such changes within food environments. However, the certainty of this evidence as assessed by GRADE is low or very low. To enable more certain and generalisable conclusions about these potentially important effects, further research is warranted in real‐world settings, intervening across a wider range of foods ‐ as well as alcohol and tobacco products ‐ and over sustained time periods., Plain language summary Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption Unhealthy patterns of consumption of food, alcohol, and tobacco products are important causes of ill health. Changing the availability (the range or amount of options, or both) of these products or their proximity (the distance at which they are positioned) to potential consumers could help people make healthier choices. What is the aim of this review? This review investigated whether altering the availability or proximity of food (including non‐alcoholic beverages), alcohol, and tobacco products changed people's selection (such as purchasing) or consumption of those products. We searched for all available evidence from randomised controlled trials (a type of study in which participants are assigned to one of two or more treatment groups using a random method) to answer this question, and found 24 studies, all of which were conducted in high‐income countries. What are the main results of the review? Six studies involved availability interventions, of which four changed the relative proportion of less‐healthy to healthier options, and two changed the absolute number of different options available. In statistical analyses that combined results from multiple studies, it was found that reducing the number of available options for a particular range or category of food(s) reduced selection of those food products (from analysing 154 participants) and possibly reduced consumption of those products (from 150 participants). However, the certainty of the evidence for these effects was low. Eighteen studies involved proximity interventions. Most (14/18) changed the distance at which a snack food or drink was placed from the participants, whilst four studies changed the order of meal components encountered along a line. One study found that this reduced selection of food (from analysing 41 participants), whilst in a statistical analysis combining results from multiple studies, it was found that placing food farther away reduced consumption of those food products (from analysing 1098 participants). However, the certainty of the evidence for these effects was very low and low, respectively. Key messages Mindful of its limitations, the current evidence suggests that changing the number of available food options or changing where foods are positioned could contribute to meaningful changes in behaviour, justifying policy actions to promote such changes to food environments. However, more high‐quality studies in real‐world settings are needed to make this finding more certain. How up‐to‐date is this review? The evidence is current to 23 July 2018.

Background Calorie labelling may help to reduce energy consumption, but few well-controlled experimental studies have been conducted in real world settings. In a previous randomised controlled pilot trial we did not observe an effect of calorie labelling on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias. In the present study we sought to enhance the effect by making the labels more prominent, and to address the operational challenges reported previously by worksites. Methods Three worksite cafeterias were randomised in a stepped wedge design to start the intervention at one of three fortnightly periods between March and July 2018. The intervention comprised introducing prominent calorie labelling for all cafeteria products for which calorie information was available (on average 87% of products offered across the three sites were labelled). Calorie content was displayed in bold capitalised Verdana typeface with a minimum font size of 14 e.g. 120 CALORIES. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed using post-intervention surveys with cafeteria patrons and semi-structured interviews with managers. Effectiveness was assessed using total daily energy (kcal) purchased from intervention items across the three sites, analysed using semi-parametric GAMLSS models. Results Recruitment and retention of worksite cafeterias proved feasible: all three randomised sites successfully completed the study. Post-intervention feedback suggested high levels of intervention acceptability: 87% of responding patrons wanted calorie labelling to remain in place. No effect of the intervention on daily energy purchased was observed: −0.6% (95%CI -2.5 to 1.2, p = .487). By-site analyses showed similar null effects at each of the three sites, all ps > .110. Conclusions There was no evidence that prominent calorie labelling changed daily energy purchased across three English-based worksite cafeterias. The intervention was feasible to implement and acceptable to patrons and managers.

Background Pharmacological treatments for tobacco dependence, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been shown to be safe and effective interventions for smoking cessation. Higher levels of adherence to these medications increase the likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, but many smokers use them at a lower dose and for less time than is optimal. It is important to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to increase medication adherence. Such interventions may address motivation to use medication, such as influencing beliefs about the value of taking medications, or provide support to overcome problems with maintaining adherence. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation on medication adherence and smoking abstinence compared with a control group typically receiving standard care. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to the 3 September 2018. We also conducted forward and backward citation searches. Selection criteria Randomised, cluster‐randomised or quasi‐randomised studies in which adults using active pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation were allocated to an intervention arm where there was a principal focus on increasing adherence to medications for tobacco dependence, or a control arm providing standard care. Dependent on setting, standard care may have comprised minimal support or varying degrees of behavioural support. Included studies used a measure that allowed assessment of the degree of medication adherence. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data for included studies and assessed risk of bias. For continuous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs). In meta‐analyses for adherence outcomes, we combined dichotomous and continuous data using the generic inverse variance method and reported pooled effect sizes as SMDs; for abstinence outcomes, we reported and pooled dichotomous outcomes. We obtained pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random‐effects models. We conducted subgroup analyses to assess whether the primary focus of the adherence treatment ('practicalities' versus 'perceptions' versus both), the delivery approach (participant versus clinician‐centred) or the medication type were associated with effectiveness. Main results We identified two new studies, giving a total of 10 studies, involving 3655 participants. The medication adherence interventions studied were all provided in addition to standard behavioural support.They typically provided further information on the rationale for, and emphasised the importance of, adherence to medication or supported the development of strategies to overcome problems with maintaining adherence (or both). Seven studies targeted adherence to NRT, two to bupropion and one to varenicline. Most studies were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias, with four of these studies judged at high risk of attrition or detection bias. Only one study was judged to be at low risk of bias. Meta‐analysis of all 10 included studies (12 comparisons) provided moderate‐certainty evidence that adherence interventions led to small improvements in adherence (i.e. the mean amount of medication consumed; SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.18; I² = 6%; n = 3655), limited by risk of bias. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome identified no significant subgroup effects, with effect sizes for subgroups imprecisely estimated. However, there was a very weak indication that interventions focused on the 'practicalities' of adhering to treatment (i.e. capabilities, resources, levels of support or skills) may be effective (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; I² = 39%; n = 1752), whereas interventions focused on treatment 'perceptions' (i.e. beliefs, cognitions, concerns and preferences; SMD 0.10, 95% CI –0.03 to 0.24; I² = 0%; n = 839) or on both (SMD 0.04, 95% CI –0.08 to 0.16; I² = 0%; n = 1064), may not be effective. Participant‐centred interventions may be effective (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.23; I² = 20%; n = 2791), whereas those that are clinician‐centred may not (SMD 0.09, 95% CI –0.05 to 0.23; I² = 0%; n = 864). Five studies assessed short‐term smoking abstinence (five comparisons), while an overlapping set of five studies (seven comparisons) assessed long‐term smoking abstinence of six months or more. Meta‐analyses resulted in low‐certainty evidence that adherence interventions may slightly increase short‐term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 1795) and long‐term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.40; I² = 48%; n = 3593). In both cases, the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision, with CIs encompassing minimal harm as well as moderate benefit, and a high likelihood that further evidence will change the estimate of the effect. There was no evidence that interventions to increase adherence to medication led to any adverse events. Studies did not report on factors plausibly associated with increases in adherence, such as self‐efficacy, understanding of and attitudes toward treatment, and motivation and intentions to quit. Authors' conclusions In people who are stopping smoking and receiving behavioural support, there is moderate‐certainty evidence that enhanced behavioural support focusing on adherence to smoking cessation medications can modestly improve adherence. There is only low‐certainty evidence that this may slightly improve the likelihood of cessation in the shorter or longer‐term. Interventions to increase adherence can aim to address the practicalities of taking medication, change perceptions about medication, such as reasons to take it or concerns about doing so, or both. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to confirm which approach is more effective. There is no evidence on whether such interventions are effective for people who are stopping smoking without standard behavioural support.

Objective Previous research suggests that wine glass size affects sales of wine in bars, with more wine purchased when served in larger glasses. The current four studies, conducted in one restaurant (Studies 1 and 2) and two bars (Studies 3 and 4) in Cambridge, England, aim to establish the reproducibility of this effect of glass size on sales. A multiple treatment reversal design was used, involving wine being served in sequential fortnightly periods in different sized glasses of the same design (290 ml, 350 ml, and 450 ml). The primary outcome was daily wine volume (ml) sold. Results Restaurant: Daily wine volume sold was 13% (95% CI 2%, 24%) higher when served with 350 ml vs. 290 ml glasses in Study 1. A similar direction of effect was seen in Study 2 (6%; 95% CI − 1%, 15%). Bars: Daily wine volume sold was 21% (95% CI 9%, 35%) higher when served with 450 ml vs. 350 ml glasses in Study 3. This effect was not observed in Study 4 (− 7%, 95% CI − 16%, 3%). Meaningful differences were not demonstrated with any other glass comparison. These results partially replicate previous studies showing that larger glasses increase wine sales. Considerable uncertainty remains about the magnitude of any effect and the contexts in which it might occur. Trial registration Study 1: ISRCTN17958895 (21/07/2017), Study 2: ISRCTN17097810 (29/03/2018), Study 3 and 4: ISRCTN39401124 (10/05/2018)

Altering the availability of products (e.g. food, alcohol or tobacco products) is one potential intervention to change behaviours to help reduce preventable premature deaths worldwide. However, research on these interventions lacks consistent conceptualisation, hindering clear reporting and cumulative synthesis. This paper proposes a conceptual framework – categorising intervention types and summarising constituent components – with which interventions can be reliably described and evidence synthesised. Three principal distinctions are proposed: interventions altering: (i) Absolute Availability (changing the overall number of options, while keeping the proportions comprised by any subsets of options constant); (ii) Relative Availability (changing the proportion comprised by a subset of options, yet keeping the overall number of options constant); (iii) Absolute and Relative Availability (changing both the overall number of options and the proportions comprised by subsets of options). These are subdivided into those targeting (a) a product or (b) a category of products. Mechanisms that might underlie each of these intervention types are discussed, and implications for future research highlighted. The proposed framework aims to facilitate study of a set of interventions that could contribute significantly to healthier behaviour across populations.

Much of the global burden of non-communicable disease is caused by unhealthy behaviours that individuals enact even when informed of their health-harming consequences. A key insight is that these behaviours are not predominantly driven by deliberative conscious decisions, but occur directly in response to environmental cues and without necessary representation of their consequences. Consequently, interventions that target non-conscious rather than conscious processes to change health behaviour may have significant potential, but this important premise remains largely untested. This is in part due to the lack of a practicable conceptual framework that can be applied to better describe and assess these interventions. We propose a framework for describing or categorising interventions to change health behaviour by the degree to which their effects may be considered non-conscious. Potential practical issues with applying such a framework are discussed, as are the implications for further research to inform the testing and development of interventions. A pragmatic means of conceptualising interventions targeted at non-conscious processes is a necessary prelude to testing the potency of such interventions. This can ultimately inform the development of interventions with the potential to shape healthier behaviours across populations.

Lessons from a case of academic misconduct

Increasing the proportion of healthier foods available could encourage healthier consumption, but evidence to date is limited in scope and quality. The current study aimed to: (a) examine the feasibility and acceptability of intervening to change product availability in worksite cafeterias; and (b) estimate the impact on energy purchased of increasing the proportion of healthier (i.e. lower energy) cooked meals, snacks, cold drinks and sandwiches. Six English worksite cafeterias increased the proportion of healthier foods available, aiming to keep the total number of options constant, in a stepped wedge randomized controlled pilot trial conducted between January and May 2017. The intervention was generally successfully implemented and acceptable to clientele. Generalized linear mixed models showed a reduction of 6.9% (95%CI: -11.7%, -1.7%, p = 0.044) in energy (kcal) purchased from targeted food categories across all sites. However, impact varied across sites, with energy purchased from targeted categories significantly reduced in two sites (-10.7% (95%CI: -18.1% to -2.6%, p = 0.046); -18.4% (95%CI: -26.9% to -8.8%, p = 0.013)), while no significant differences were seen in the other four sites. Overall, increasing the proportion of healthier options available in worksite cafeterias seems a promising intervention to reduce energy purchased but contextual effects merit further study.

Background Reducing harmful consumption of food, alcohol, and tobacco products would prevent many cancers, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Placing information-based cues in the environments in which we select and consume these products has the potential to contribute to changing these behaviours. Methods In this review, information-based cues are defined as those which comprise any combination of words, symbols, numbers or pictures that convey information about a product or its use. We specifically exclude cues which are located on the products themselves. We conducted a systematic review of randomised, cluster- randomised, and non-randomised controlled trials to assess the impact of such cues on selection and consumption. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 12 targeted food (most commonly fruit and vegetables), one targeted alcohol sales, and none targeted tobacco products. Results Ten studies reported statistically significant effects on some or all of the targeted products, although studies were insufficiently homogenous to justify meta-analysis. Existing evidence suggests information-based cues can influence selection and consumption of food and alcohol products, although significant uncertainty remains. Conclusions The current evidence base is limited both in quality and quantity, with relatively few, heterogeneous studies at unclear or high risk of bias. Additional, more rigorously conducted studies are warranted to better estimate the potential for these interventions to change selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco products. Trial registration PROSPERO. 2016;CRD42016051884. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5280-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy diet and low levels of physical activity are common behavioural factors in the aetiology of many non-communicable diseases. Recent years have witnessed an upsurge of policy and research interest in the use of taxes and other economic instruments to improve population health. OBJECTIVE: To assemble, configure and analyse empirical research studies available to inform the public health case for using economic instruments to promote dietary and physical activity behaviour change. METHODS: We conducted a systematic scoping review of evidence for the effects of specific interventions to change, or general exposure to variations in, prices or income on dietary and physical activity behaviours and corollary outcomes. Systematic electronic searches and parallel snowball searches retrieved >1 million study records. Text mining technologies were used to prioritise title-abstract records for screening. Eligible studies were selected, classified and analysed in terms of key characteristics and principal findings, using a narrative, configuring synthesis focused on implications for policy and further research. RESULTS: We identified 880 eligible studies, including 192 intervention studies and 768 studies that incorporated evidence for prices or income as correlates or determinants of target outcomes. Current evidence for the effects of economic instruments and exposures on diet and physical activity is limited in quality and equivocal in terms of its policy implications. Direct evidence for the effects of economic instruments is heavily skewed towards impacts on diet, with a relative lack of evidence for impacts on physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based case for using economic instruments to promote dietary and physical activity behaviour change may be less compelling than some proponents have claimed. Future research should include measurement of people's actual behavioural responses using study designs capable of generating reliable causal inferences regarding intervention effects. Policy implementation needs to be carefully aligned with evaluation planning and design.

BACKGROUND: The idea that behaviour can be influenced at population level by altering the environments within which people make choices (choice architecture) has gained traction in policy circles. However, empirical evidence to support this idea is limited, especially its application to changing health behaviour. We propose an evidence-based definition and typology of choice architecture interventions that have been implemented within small-scale micro-environments and evaluated for their effects on four key sets of health behaviours: diet, physical activity, alcohol and tobacco use. DISCUSSION: We argue that the limitations of the evidence base are due not simply to an absence of evidence, but also to a prior lack of definitional and conceptual clarity concerning applications of choice architecture to public health intervention. This has hampered the potential for systematic assessment of existing evidence. By seeking to address this issue, we demonstrate how our definition and typology have enabled systematic identification and preliminary mapping of a large body of available evidence for the effects of choice architecture interventions. We discuss key implications for further primary research, evidence synthesis and conceptual development to support the design and evaluation of such interventions. SUMMARY: This conceptual groundwork provides a foundation for future research to investigate the effectiveness of choice architecture interventions within micro-environments for changing health behaviour. The approach we used may also serve as a template for mapping other under-explored fields of enquiry.

Background Nutritional labelling is advocated as a means to promote healthier food purchasing and consumption, including lower energy intake. Internationally, many different nutritional labelling schemes have been introduced. There is no consensus on whether such labelling is effective in promoting healthier behaviour. Objectives To assess the impact of nutritional labelling for food and non-alcoholic drinks on purchasing and consumption of healthier items. Our secondary objective was to explore possible effect moderators of nutritional labelling on purchasing and consumption. Search methods We searched 13 electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to 26 April 2017. We also handsearched references and citations and sought unpublished studies through websites and trials registries. Selection criteria Eligible studies: were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs/Q-RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies, or interrupted time series (ITS) studies; compared a labelled product (with information on nutrients or energy) with the same product without a nutritional label; assessed objectively measured purchasing or consumption of foods or non-alcoholic drinks in real-world or laboratory settings. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. We pooled studies that evaluated similar interventions and outcomes using a random-effects meta-analysis, and we synthesised data from other studies in a narrative summary. Main results We included 28 studies, comprising 17 RCTs, 5 Q-RCTs and 6 ITS studies. Most (21/28) took place in the USA, and 19 took place in university settings, 14 of which mainly involved university students or staff. Most (20/28) studies assessed the impact of labelling on menus or menu boards, or nutritional labelling placed on, or adjacent to, a range of foods or drinks from which participants could choose. Eight studies provided participants with only one labelled food or drink option (in which labelling was present on a container or packaging, adjacent to the food or on a display board) and measured the amount consumed. The most frequently assessed labelling type was energy (i.e. calorie) information (12/28). Eleven studies assessed the impact of nutritional labelling on purchasing food or drink options in real-world settings, including purchases from vending machines (one cluster-RCT), grocery stores (one ITS), or restaurants, cafeterias or coffee shops (three RCTs, one Q-RCT and five ITS). Findings on vending machines and grocery stores were not interpretable, and were rated as very low quality. A meta-analysis of the three RCTs, all of which assessed energy labelling on menus in restaurants, demonstrated a statistically significant reduction of 47 kcal in energy purchased (MD −46.72 kcal, 95% CI −78.35, −15.10, N = 1877). Assuming an average meal of 600 kcal, energy labelling on menus would reduce energy purchased per meal by 7.8% (95% CI 2.5% to 13.1%). The quality of the evidence for these three studies was rated as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies. Of the remaining six studies, only two (both ITS studies involving energy labels on menus or menus boards in a coffee shop or cafeteria) were at low risk of bias, and their results support the meta-analysis. The results of the other four studies which were conducted in a restaurant, cafeterias (2 studies) or a coffee shop, were not clearly reported and were at high risk of bias. Seventeen studies assessed the impact of nutritional labels on consumption in artificial settings or scenarios (henceforth referred to as laboratory studies or settings). Of these, eight (all RCTs) assessed the effect of labels on menus or placed on a range of food options. A meta-analysis of these studies did not conclusively demonstrate a reduction in energy consumed during a meal (MD −50 kcal, 95% CI −104.41, 3.88, N = 1705). We rated the quality of the evidence as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies. Six laboratory studies (four RCTs and two Q-RCTs) assessed the impact of labelling a single food or drink option (such as chocolate, pasta or soft drinks) on energy consumed during a snack or meal. A meta-analysis of these studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in energy (kcal) consumed (SMD 0.05, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.27, N = 732). However, the confidence intervals were wide, suggesting uncertainty in the true effect size. We rated the quality of the evidence as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies. There was no evidence that nutritional labelling had the unintended harm of increasing energy purchased or consumed. Indirect evidence came from five laboratory studies that involved mislabelling single nutrient content (i.e. placing low energy or low fat labels on high-energy foods) during a snack or meal. A meta-analysis of these studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant increase in energy (kcal) consumed (SMD 0.19, 95% CI −0.14to 0.51, N = 718). The effect was small and the confidence intervals wide, suggesting uncertainty in the true effect size. We rated the quality of the evidence from these studies as very low, providing very little confidence in the effect estimate. Authors' conclusions Findings from a small body of low-quality evidence suggest that nutritional labelling comprising energy information on menus may reduce energy purchased in restaurants. The evidence assessing the impact on consumption of energy information on menus or on a range of food options in laboratory settings suggests a similar effect to that observed for purchasing, although the evidence is less definite and also of low quality. Accordingly, and in the absence of observed harms, we tentatively suggest that nutritional labelling on menus in restaurants could be used as part of a wider set of measures to tackle obesity. Additional high-quality research in real-world settings is needed to enable more certain conclusions. Further high-quality research is also needed to address the dearth of evidence from grocery stores and vending machines and to assess potential moderators of the intervention effect, including socioeconomic status. Nutritional labelling to promote healthier consumption and purchasing of food or drinks A poor diet including excessive energy intake is an important cause of ill health. Nutritional labelling may help people to make healthier food choices. What is the aim of this review? This review investigated whether nutritional labels (i.e. labels providing information about nutritional content) persuade people to buy or consume different (healthy) kinds of food. We searched for all available evidence to answer this question and found 28 studies. Key messages There is evidence to suggest that nutritional labelling, with energy information (e.g. calorie counts) on menus, may reduce energy purchased in restaurants, but more high-quality studies are needed to make this finding more certain. What was studied in the review? Some studies assessed buying food or drinks from vending machines, grocery stores, restaurants, cafeterias, or coffee shops. Others assessed the amount of food or drink consumed during a snack or meal in an artificial setting or scenario (referred to as laboratory studies or settings). What are the main results of the review? Nutritional labelling on restaurant menus reduced the amount of energy (i.e. calories) purchased, but the quality of the three studies that contributed to this finding was low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies. Eight studies assessed this same type of intervention in laboratory settings, but instead of evaluating how much energy participants purchased, these studies evaluated how much energy participants consumed. These studies did not conclusively demonstrate a reduction in energy consumed when menus or foods were labelled, and they were also of low quality. In addition, six laboratory studies assessed how much energy participants consumed when they were given one food or drink option with or without labels, and five laboratory studies assessed how much energy participants consumed when foods were experimentally labelled as low energy or low fat when they were actually high-energy foods (i.e. mislabelling). Results from these two groups of studies were inconclusive and of low, or in the case of mislabelling studies, very low quality. We found some studies that assessed labelling on vending machines and grocery stores, but their results were not easy to interpret, so we could not use them to inform this review. How up-to-date is this review? The evidence is current to 26 April 2017.

OBJECTIVE: Placing snack-food further away from people consistently decreases its consumption ("proximity effect"). However, given diet-related health inequalities, it is important to know whether interventions that alter food proximity have potential to change behaviour regardless of cognitive resource (capacity for self-control). This is often lower in those in lower socio-economic positions, who also tend to have less healthy diet-related behaviours. Study 1 aims to replicate the proximity effect in a general population sample and estimate whether trait-level cognitive resource moderates the effect. In a stronger test, Study 2 investigates whether the effect is similar regardless of manipulated state-level cognitive resource. METHOD: Participants were recruited into two laboratory studies (Study 1: n = 159; Study 2: n = 246). A bowl of an unhealthy snack was positioned near (20 cm) or far (70 cm) from the participant, as randomised. In Study 2, participants were further randomised to a cognitive load intervention. The pre-specified primary outcome was the proportion of participants taking any of the snack. RESULTS: Significantly fewer participants took the snack when far compared with near in Study 2 (57.7% vs 70.7%, β = -1.63, p = 0.020), but not in Study 1 (53.8% vs 63.3%, X2 = 1.12, p = 0.289). Removing participants who moved the bowl (i.e. who did not adhere to protocol), increased the effect-sizes: Study 1: 39.3% vs 63.9%, X2 = 6.43, p = 0.011; Study 2: 56.0% vs 73.9%, β = -2.46, p = 0.003. Effects were not moderated by cognitive resource. CONCLUSIONS: These studies provide the most robust evidence to date that placing food further away reduces likelihood of consumption in general population samples, an effect unlikely to be moderated by cognitive resource. This indicates potential for interventions altering food proximity to contribute to addressing health inequalities, but requires testing in real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Both studies were registered with ISRCTN (Study 1 reference no.: ISRCTN46995850, Study 2 reference no.: ISRCTN14239872).

Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption increases obesity risk and is linked to adverse health consequences. Large packages increase food consumption, but most evidence comes from studies comparing larger with standard packages, resulting in uncertainty regarding the impact of smaller packages. There is also little research on beverages. This qualitative study explores the experiences of consuming cola from smaller compared with larger bottles, to inform intervention strategies. Sixteen households in Cambridge, England, participating in a feasibility study assessing the impact of bottle size on in-home SSB consumption, received a set amount of cola each week for four weeks in one of four bottle sizes: 1500 ml, 1000 ml, 500 ml, or 250 ml, in random order. At the study end, household representatives were interviewed about their experiences of using each bottle, including perceptions of i) consumption level; ii) consumption-related behaviours; and iii) factors affecting consumption. Interviews were semi-structured and data analysed using the Framework approach. The present analysis focuses specifically on experiences relating to use of the smaller bottles. The smallest bottles were described as increasing drinking occasion frequency and encouraging consumption of numerous bottles in succession. Factors described as facilitating their consumption were: i) convenience and portability; ii) greater numbers of bottles available, which hindered consumption monitoring and control; iii) perceived insufficient quantity per bottle; and iv) positive attitudes. In a minority of cases the smallest bottles were perceived to have reduced consumption, but this was related to practical issues with the bottles that resulted in dislike. The perception of greater consumption and qualitative reports of drinking habits associated with the smallest bottles raise the possibility that the ‘portion size effect’ has a lower threshold, beyond which smaller portions and packages may increase consumption. This reinforces the need for empirical evidence to assess the in-home impact of smaller bottles on SSB consumption.

Wine glass size may influence perceived volume and subsequently purchasing and consumption. Using a larger glass to serve the same portions of wine was found to increase wine sales by 9.4% (95% CI 1.9, 17.5) in a recent study conducted in one bar. The current study aimed to replicate this previous work in two other bars using a wider range of glass sizes. To match the previous study, a repeated multiple treatment reversal design, during which wine was served in glasses of the same design but different sizes, was used. The study was conducted in two bars in Cambridge, England, using glass sizes of 300, 370, 510 ml (Bar 1) and 300 and 510 ml (Bar 2). Customers purchased their choice of a 750 ml bottle, or standard UK measures of 125, 175 or 250 ml of wine, each of which was served with the same glass.Bar 1: Daily wine volume (ml) purchased was 10.5% (95% CI 1.0, 20.9) higher when sold in 510 ml compared to 370 ml glasses; but sales were not significantly different with 300 ml vs. 370 ml glasses (6.5%, 95% CI −5.2, 19.6) [corrected]. Bar 2 Findings were inconclusive as to whether daily wine purchased differed when using 510 ml versus 300 ml glasses (-1.1%, 95% CI -12.6, 11.9). These results provide a partial replication of previous work showing that introducing larger glasses (without manipulating portion size) increases purchasing. Understanding the mechanisms by which wine glass size influences consumption may elucidate when the effect can be expected and when not. Trial registration This study is a replication study, based on the procedure set out in the trial registration for the study that it attempts to replicate (ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN12018175).

${\bf Background:}$ Despite attempts to improve diet at population level, people living in material and social deprivation continue to consume unhealthy diets. Executive function - the ability to regulate behaviour and resist impulses – is weaker in individuals living in deprivation. Dietary interventions that educate and persuade people to reflect on and actively change behaviour may therefore disproportionately benefit individuals who are socioeconomically advantaged and have stronger executive function, thus exacerbating inequalities in health resulting from unhealthy diets. In contrast, manipulating environmental cues, such as how far away a food is placed, does not appeal to reasoned action and is thought to operate largely outside of awareness to influence behaviour. People eat more of a food when it is placed closer to them, an effect seemingly robust to context, food quality and body-weight status. However, previous studies of this ‘proximity effect’ are limited by small samples consisting mainly of university staff or students, biased towards higher socio-economic position and therefore likely stronger executive function. This study aims to test the hypothesis that placing food further away from a person decreases intake of that food regardless of executive function. ${\bf Methods/Design:}$ 156 members of the general public, recruited from low and high socio-economic groups, will be randomised to one of two conditions varying in the proximity of a snack food relative to their position: 20 cm or 70 cm. Participants are told they will be taking part in a relaxation study – and are fully debriefed at the conclusion of the session. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants eating any amount of snack food and the secondary outcome is the mean amount eaten. Executive function is assessed using the Stroop task. ${\bf Discussion:}$ The proposed study takes a novel step by investigating the effect of proximity on snack food intake in a general population sample consisting of those with high and low executive function, appropriately powered to detect the predicted proximity effect. If this effect occurs irrespective of executive function and socio-economic position, it may have potential to reduce inequalities patterned by socio-economic position if implemented in real-world settings such as shops or restaurants., This study is supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Sackler Prize, a doctoral training grant awarded to JAH. The study was also partially funded by the Department of Health Policy Research Program (Policy Research Unit in Behavior and Health [PR-UN-0409-10109])., This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3184-9

Objective Wine glass size may influence perceived volume and subsequently purchasing and consumption. Using a larger glass to serve the same portions of wine was found to increase wine sales by 9.4% (95% CI 1.9, 17.5) in a recent study conducted in one bar. The current study aimed to replicate this previous work in two other bars using a wider range of glass sizes. To match the previous study, a repeated multiple treatment reversal design, during which wine was served in glasses of the same design but different sizes, was used. The study was conducted in two bars in Cambridge, England, using glass sizes of 300, 370, 510 ml (Bar 1) and 300 and 510 ml (Bar 2). Customers purchased their choice of a 750 ml bottle, or standard UK measures of 125, 175 or 250 ml of wine, each of which was served with the same glass. Results Bar 1 Daily wine volume (ml) purchased was 10.5% (95% CI 1.0, 20.9) higher when sold in 510 ml compared to 370 ml glasses; but sales were not significantly different with 300 ml vs. 370 ml glasses (6.5%, 95% CI −5.2, 19.6). Bar 2 Findings were inconclusive as to whether daily wine purchased differed when using 510 ml versus 300 ml glasses (−1.1%, 95% CI −12.6, 11.9). These results provide a partial replication of previous work showing that introducing larger glasses (without manipulating portion size) increases purchasing. Understanding the mechanisms by which wine glass size influences consumption may elucidate when the effect can be expected and when not. Trial registration This study is a replication study, based on the procedure set out in the trial registration for the study that it attempts to replicate (ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN12018175)

Reflecting widespread interest in concepts of ‘nudging’ and ‘choice architecture’, there is increasing research and policy attention on altering aspects of the small-scale physical environment, such as portion sizes or the placement of products, to change health-related behaviour at the population level. There is, however, a lack of clarity in characterizing these interventions and no reliable framework incorporating standardized definitions. This hampers both the synthesis of cumulative evidence about intervention effects, and the identification of intervention opportunities. To address this, a new tool, TIPPME (typology of interventions in proximal physical micro-environments), has been developed and here applied to the selection, purchase and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. This provides a framework to reliably classify and describe, and enable more systematic design, reporting and analysis of, an important class of interventions. In doing so, it makes a distinct contribution to collective efforts to build the cumulative evidence base for effective ways of changing behaviour across populations.

Objectives In January 2016, the 4 UK Chief Medical Officers released a public consultation regarding updated guidelines for low-risk alcohol consumption. This study aimed to assess responses to the updated guidelines using comments made on Twitter. Methods Tweets containing the hashtag #alcoholguidelines made during 1 week following the announcement of the updated guidelines were retrieved using the Twitter Archiver tool. The source, sentiment and themes of the tweets were categorised using manual content analysis. Results A total of 3061 tweets was retrieved. 6 sources were identified, the most prominent being members of the public. Of 821 tweets expressing sentiment specifically towards the guidelines, 80% expressed a negative sentiment. 11 themes were identified, 3 of which were broadly supportive of the guidelines, 7 broadly unsupportive and 1 neutral. Overall, more tweets were unsupportive (49%) than supportive (44%). While the most common theme overall was sharing information, the most common in tweets from members of the public encouraged alcohol consumption (15%) or expressed disagreement with the guidelines (14%), reflecting reactance, resistance and misunderstanding. Conclusions This descriptive analysis revealed a number of themes present in unsupportive comments towards the updated UK alcohol guidelines among a largely proalcohol community. An understanding of these may help to tailor effective communication of alcohol and health-related policies, and could inform a more dynamic approach to health communication via social media.

BACKGROUND: Overconsumption of food, alcohol, and tobacco products increases the risk of non-communicable diseases. Interventions to change characteristics of physical micro-environments where people may select or consume these products - including shops, restaurants, workplaces, and schools - are of considerable public health policy and research interest. This review addresses two types of intervention within such environments: altering the availability (the range and/or amount of options) of these products, or their proximity (the distance at which they are positioned) to potential consumers. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the impact on selection and consumption of altering the availability or proximity of (a) food (including non-alcoholic beverages), (b) alcohol, and (c) tobacco products.2. To assess the extent to which the impact of these interventions is modified by characteristics of: i. studies, ii. interventions, and iii. PARTICIPANTS: SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and seven other published or grey literature databases, as well as trial registries and key websites, up to 23 July 2018, followed by citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with between-participants (parallel group) or within-participants (cross-over) designs. Eligible studies compared effects of exposure to at least two different levels of availability of a product or its proximity, and included a measure of selection or consumption of the manipulated product. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a novel semi-automated screening workflow and applied standard Cochrane methods to select eligible studies, collect data, and assess risk of bias. In separate analyses for availability interventions and proximity interventions, we combined results using random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression models to estimate summary effect sizes (as standardised mean differences (SMDs)) and to investigate associations between summary effect sizes and selected study, intervention, or participant characteristics. We rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies, with the majority (20/24) giving concerns about risk of bias. All of the included studies investigated food products; none investigated alcohol or tobacco. The majority were conducted in laboratory settings (14/24), with adult participants (17/24), and used between-participants designs (19/24). All studies were conducted in high-income countries, predominantly in the USA (14/24).Six studies investigated availability interventions, of which two changed the absolute number of different options available, and four altered the relative proportion of less-healthy (to healthier) options. Most studies (4/6) manipulated snack foods or drinks. For selection outcomes, meta-analysis of three comparisons from three studies (n = 154) found that exposure to fewer options resulted in a large reduction in selection of the targeted food(s): SMD -1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.90 to -0.37) (low certainty evidence). For consumption outcomes, meta-analysis of three comparisons from two studies (n = 150) found that exposure to fewer options resulted in a moderate reduction in consumption of those foods, but with considerable uncertainty: SMD -0.55 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.18) (low certainty evidence).Eighteen studies investigated proximity interventions. Most (14/18) changed the distance at which a snack food or drink was placed from the participants, whilst four studies changed the order of meal components encountered along a line. For selection outcomes, only one study with one comparison (n = 41) was identified, which found that food placed farther away resulted in a moderate reduction in its selection: SMD -0.65 (95% CI -1.29 to -0.01) (very low certainty evidence). For consumption outcomes, meta-analysis of 15 comparisons from 12 studies (n = 1098) found that exposure to food placed farther away resulted in a moderate reduction in its consumption: SMD -0.60 (95% CI -0.84 to -0.36) (low certainty evidence). Meta-regression analyses indicated that this effect was greater: the farther away the product was placed; when only the targeted product(s) was available; when participants were of low deprivation status; and when the study was at high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that changing the number of available food options or altering the positioning of foods could contribute to meaningful changes in behaviour, justifying policy actions to promote such changes within food environments. However, the certainty of this evidence as assessed by GRADE is low or very low. To enable more certain and generalisable conclusions about these potentially important effects, further research is warranted in real-world settings, intervening across a wider range of foods - as well as alcohol and tobacco products - and over sustained time periods.

$\textbf{Background:}$ Tableware size may influence how much food and non-alcoholic drink is consumed. Preliminary evidence of the impact of glass size on purchasing of alcoholic drinks shows an increase in wine sales of almost 10% when the same portion of wine is served in a larger glass. The primary aim of the current study is to test if micro-drinking behaviours act as a mechanism that could underlie this effect, through an increase in drinking rate, sip duration and/or number of sips from a larger glass. $\textbf{Methods:}$ In a between-subjects experimental design, 166 young women were randomised to drink a 175 ml portion of wine from either a smaller (250 ml) or larger (370 ml) wine glass. Primary outcomes were three micro-drinking behaviours, assessed observationally using video recordings: drinking rate, sip number and sip duration. Other possible mechanisms examined were satisfaction with the perceived amount of wine served and pleasure of the drinking experience, assessed using self-report measures. $\textbf{Results:}$ Wine drunk from the larger, compared with the smaller glass, was consumed more slowly and with shorter sip duration, counter to the hypothesised direction of effect. No differences were observed in any of the other outcome measures. $\textbf{Conclusions:}$ These findings provide no support for the hypothesised mechanisms by which serving wine in larger wine glasses increases consumption. While micro-drinking behaviours may still prove to be a mechanism explaining consumption from different glass sizes, cross-validation of these results in a more naturalistic setting is needed., Department of Health Policy Research Programme (Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health (PR-UN-0409-10109)).

Background: An estimated one third of energy is consumed in the workplace. The workplace is therefore an important context in which to reduce energy consumption to tackle the high rates of overweight and obesity in the general population. Altering environmental cues for food selection and consumption—physical microenvironment or 'choice architecture' interventions—has the potential to reduce energy intake. The first aim of this pilot trial is to estimate the potential impact upon energy purchased of three such environmental cues (size of portions, packages and tableware; availability of healthier vs. less healthy options; and energy labelling) in workplace cafeterias. A second aim of this pilot trial is to examine the feasibility of recruiting eligible worksites, and identify barriers to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the interventions in preparation for a larger trial. Methods: Eighteen worksite cafeterias in England will be assigned to one of three intervention groups to assess the impact on energy purchased of altering (a) portion, package and tableware size (n = 6); (b) availability of healthier options (n = 6); and (c) energy (calorie) labelling (n = 6). Using a stepped wedge design, sites will implement allocated interventions at different time periods, as randomised. Discussion: This pilot trial will examine the feasibility of recruiting eligible worksites, and the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the interventions in preparation for a larger trial. In addition, a series of linear mixed models will be used to estimate the impact of each intervention on total energy (calories) purchased per time frame of analysis (daily or weekly) controlling for the total sales/transactions adjusted for calendar time and with random effects for worksite. These analyses will allow an estimate of an effect size of each of the three proposed interventions, which will form the basis of the sample size calculations necessary for a larger trial. Trial registration: ISRCTN52923504

A previous study conducted in the USA reported an association between residential proximity to a tobacco outlet and reduced likelihood of a quit attempt enduring beyond six months. We replicated this study in an English urban setting using data on 611 smokers motivated to quit, of whom 66 were biochemically validated as being quit at six months. Sustained quitting at six months was unrelated to residential proximity of a tobacco outlet. Future studies would be improved by the use of validated mappings of retail outlets, mapped in relation to multiple activity spaces, not just residence.

There is growing evidence for the effectiveness of choice architecture or ‘nudge’ interventions to change a range of behaviours including the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and food. Public acceptability is key to implementing these and other interventions. However, few studies have assessed public acceptability of these interventions, including the extent to which acceptability varies with the type of intervention, the target behaviour and with evidence of intervention effectiveness. These were assessed in an online study using a between-participants full factorial design with three factors: Policy (availability vs size vs labelling vs tax) x Behaviour (alcohol consumption vs tobacco use vs high-calorie snack food consumption) x Evidence communication (no message vs assertion of policy effectiveness vs assertion and quantification of policy effectiveness [e.g., a 10% change in behaviour]). Participants (N = 7058) were randomly allocated to one of the 36 groups. The primary outcome was acceptability of the policy. Acceptability differed across policy, behaviour and evidence communication (all ps, Highlights • Public acceptability varies across nudges and taxes and behaviour targeted. • Labelling was the most acceptable policy, then Size, Tax, and Availability. • Targeting tobacco use was more acceptable than targeting alcohol or food. • Asserting effectiveness increased acceptability; quantifying it had no added impact. • The more participants engage in the targeted behaviour, the lower their support.

BACKGROUND: Intake of free sugars in the population exceeds recommendations, with the largest source in the diet being sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). SSB consumption is linked to adverse health consequences and contributes to health inequalities, given greater consumption amongst the most deprived. One possible intervention is to reduce the available sizes of SSB packaging but there is an absence of evidence that this would reduce consumption. Based on evidence from studies targeting food consumption that people consume less when exposed to smaller package sizes, we hypothesise that presenting SSBs in smaller containers reduces consumption. We are planning a crossover randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of presenting a fixed volume of SSB in different bottle sizes on consumption at home. To reduce the uncertainties related to this trial, we propose a preliminary study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, allocation, measurement, retention and intervention procedures. METHODS/DESIGN: Households which purchase at least 2 l of regular cola drinks per week and live in Cambridgeshire, UK will have a set amount of a cola SSB (based on their typical weekly purchasing of cola) delivered to their homes each week by the research team. This total amount of cola will be packaged into bottles of one of four sizes: (i) 1500 ml, (ii) 1000 ml, (iii) 500 ml or (iv) 250 ml. A crossover design will be used in which households will each receive all four of the week-long interventions (the four different bottle sizes) over time, randomised in their order of presentation. Approximately 100 eligible households will be approached to assess the proportion interested in actively participating in the study. Of those interested, 16 will be invited to continue participation. DISCUSSION: The findings will inform the procedures for a crossover randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of presenting a fixed volume of SSB in different bottle sizes on consumption at home. The findings from such a trial are expected to provide the best estimate to date of the effect of container size on beverage consumption and inform ongoing scientific and policy discussions about the effectiveness of this intervention at reducing population intake of free sugars in beverages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14964130.

Objective To examine the impact of presenting images of foods paired with images of positive and negative health consequences of their consumption on food choice and attitudes. Method Participants (N = 711) were randomly allocated in a 2 × 3 factorial design (Food Type × Affective Valence) to 1 of 6 conditioning procedures that paired images of either energy-dense snack foods or fruit, with (a) images of negative health outcomes, (b) images of positive health outcomes, or (c) a no image control. The primary outcome was food choice assessed postintervention with a behavioral choice task. Secondary outcomes were implicit attitudes (assessed pre- and postintervention) and explicit attitudes (assessed postintervention). Results Presenting images of negative health outcomes led to more healthy food choices relative to control and positive image conditions, irrespective of whether they were paired with images of energy-dense snack foods or fruit. This relationship was partially mediated by changes in implicit and explicit attitudes. Images of positive health outcomes did not alter food choices. Conclusions This study replicates and extends previous research showing that presenting images of negative health consequences increases healthy food choices. Because effects were elicited by manipulating affective valence irrespective of paired food type, these results appear more consistent with an explanation based on priming than on evaluative conditioning. (PsycINFO Database Record

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of communicating DNA based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing health behaviours and motivation to engage in such behaviours.DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis, using Cochrane methods.DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 25 February 2015. Backward and forward citation searches were also conducted.STUDY SELECTION: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving adults in which one group received personalised DNA based estimates of disease risk for conditions where risk could be reduced by behaviour change. Eligible studies included a measure of risk-reducing behaviour.RESULTS: We examined 10 515 abstracts and included 18 studies that reported on seven behavioural outcomes, including smoking cessation (six studies; n=2663), diet (seven studies; n=1784), and physical activity (six studies; n=1704). Meta-analysis revealed no significant effects of communicating DNA based risk estimates on smoking cessation (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.35, P=0.67), diet (standardised mean difference 0.12, 95% confidence interval -0.00 to 0.24, P=0.05), or physical activity (standardised mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.08, P=0.62). There were also no effects on any other behaviours (alcohol use, medication use, sun protection behaviours, and attendance at screening or behavioural support programmes) or on motivation to change behaviour, and no adverse effects, such as depression and anxiety. Subgroup analyses provided no clear evidence that communication of a risk-conferring genotype affected behaviour more than communication of the absence of such a genotype. However, studies were predominantly at high or unclear risk of bias, and evidence was typically of low quality.CONCLUSIONS: Expectations that communicating DNA based risk estimates changes behaviour is not supported by existing evidence. These results do not support use of genetic testing or the search for risk-conferring gene variants for common complex diseases on the basis that they motivate risk-reducing behaviour.SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This is a revised and updated version of a Cochrane review from 2010, adding 11 studies to the seven previously identified.

BACKGROUND: "Nudging"-modifying environments to change people's behavior, often without their conscious awareness-can improve health, but public acceptability of nudging is largely unknown. METHODS: We compared acceptability, in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA), of government interventions to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. Three nudge interventions were assessed: i. reducing portion Size, ii. changing the Shape of the drink containers, iii. changing their shelf Location; alongside two traditional interventions: iv. Taxation and v. Education. We also tested the hypothesis that describing interventions as working through non-conscious processes decreases their acceptability. Predictors of acceptability, including perceived intervention effectiveness, were also assessed. Participants (n = 1093 UK and n = 1082 USA) received a description of each of the five interventions which varied, by randomisation, in how the interventions were said to affect behaviour: (a) via conscious processes; (b) via non-conscious processes; or (c) no process stated. Acceptability was derived from responses to three items. RESULTS: Levels of acceptability for four of the five interventions did not differ significantly between the UK and US samples; reducing portion size was less accepted by the US sample. Within each country, Education was rated as most acceptable and Taxation the least, with the three nudge-type interventions rated between these. There was no evidence to support the study hypothesis: i.e. stating that interventions worked via non-conscious processes did not decrease their acceptability in either the UK or US samples. Perceived effectiveness was the strongest predictor of acceptability for all interventions across the two samples. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, nudge interventions to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages seem similarly acceptable in the UK and USA, being more acceptable than taxation, but less acceptable than education. Contrary to prediction, we found no evidence that highlighting the non-conscious processes by which nudge interventions may work decreases their acceptability. However, highlighting the effectiveness of all interventions has the potential to increase their acceptability.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To estimate the effect of energy labelling for food (including non‐alcoholic drinks) and alcoholic drinks on healthier selection (with or without purchasing) and consumption. To assess possible modifiers – energy label type, setting and socioeconomic status ‐ of the effect of energy labelling on selection and consumption of food and alcohol.

Background Overeating and harmful alcohol and tobacco use have been linked to the aetiology of various non-communicable diseases, which are among the leading global causes of morbidity and premature mortality. As people are repeatedly exposed to varying sizes and shapes of food, alcohol and tobacco products in environments such as shops, restaurants, bars and homes, this has stimulated public health policy interest in product size and shape as potential targets for intervention. Objectives 1) To assess the effects of interventions involving exposure to different sizes or sets of physical dimensions of a portion, package, individual unit or item of tableware on unregulated selection or consumption of food, alcohol or tobacco products in adults and children. 2) To assess the extent to which these effects may be modified by study, intervention and participant characteristics. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, eight other published or grey literature databases, trial registries and key websites up to November 2012, followed by citation searches and contacts with study authors. This original search identified eligible studies published up to July 2013, which are fully incorporated into the review. We conducted an updated search up to 30 January 2015 but further eligible studies are not yet fully incorporated due to their minimal potential to change the conclusions. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials with between-subjects (parallel-group) or within-subjects (cross-over) designs, conducted in laboratory or field settings, in adults or children. Eligible studies compared at least two groups of participants, each exposed to a different size or shape of a portion of a food (including non-alcoholic beverages), alcohol or tobacco product, its package or individual unit size, or of an item of tableware used to consume it, and included a measure of unregulated selection or consumption of food, alcohol or tobacco. Data collection and analysis We applied standard Cochrane methods to select eligible studies for inclusion and to collect data and assess risk of bias. We calculated study-level effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) between comparison groups, measured as quantities selected or consumed. We combined these results using random-effects meta-analysis models to estimate summary effect sizes (SMDs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) for each outcome for size and shape comparisons. We rated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE system. Finally, we used meta-regression analysis to investigate statistical associations between summary effect sizes and variant study, intervention or participant characteristics. Main results The current version of this review includes 72 studies, published between 1978 and July 2013, assessed as being at overall unclear or high risk of bias with respect to selection and consumption outcomes. Ninety-six per cent of included studies (69/72) manipulated food products and 4% (3/72) manipulated cigarettes. No included studies manipulated alcohol products. Forty-nine per cent (35/72) manipulated portion size, 14% (10/72) package size and 21% (15/72) tableware size or shape. More studies investigated effects among adults (76% (55/72)) than children and all studies were conducted in high-income countries - predominantly in the USA (81% (58/72)). Sources of funding were reported for the majority of studies, with no evidence of funding by agencies with possible commercial interests in their results. A meta-analysis of 86 independent comparisons from 58 studies (6603 participants) found a small to moderate effect of portion, package, individual unit or tableware size on consumption of food (SMD 0.38, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.46), providing moderate quality evidence that exposure to larger sizes increased quantities of food consumed among children (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.31) and adults (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52). The size of this effect suggests that, if sustained reductions in exposure to larger-sized food portions, packages and tableware could be achieved across the whole diet, this could reduce average daily energy consumed from food by between 144 and 228 kcal (8.5% to 13.5% from a baseline of 1689 kcal) among UK children and adults. A meta-analysis of six independent comparisons from three studies (108 participants) found low quality evidence for no difference in the effect of cigarette length on consumption (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.65). One included study (50 participants) estimated a large effect on consumption of exposure to differently shaped tableware (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.78), rated as very low quality evidence that exposure to shorter, wider bottles (versus taller, narrower bottles) increased quantities of water consumed by young adult participants. A meta-analysis of 13 independent comparisons from 10 studies (1164 participants) found a small to moderate effect of portion or tableware size on selection of food (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.59), rated as moderate quality evidence that exposure to larger sizes increased the quantities of food people selected for subsequent consumption. This effect was present among adults (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.75) but not children (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.34). In addition, a meta-analysis of three independent comparisons from three studies (232 participants) found a very large effect of exposure to differently shaped tableware on selection of non-alcoholic beverages (SMD 1.47, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.43), rated as low quality evidence that exposure to shorter, wider (versus taller, narrower) glasses or bottles increased the quantities selected for subsequent consumption among adults (SMD 2.31, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.83) and children (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.65). Authors' conclusions This review found that people consistently consume more food and drink when offered larger-sized portions, packages or tableware than when offered smaller-sized versions. This suggests that policies and practices that successfully reduce the size, availability and appeal of larger-sized portions, packages, individual units and tableware can contribute to meaningful reductions in the quantities of food (including non-alcoholic beverages) people select and consume in the immediate and short term. However, it is uncertain whether reducing portions at the smaller end of the size range can be as effective in reducing food consumption as reductions at the larger end of the range. We are unable to highlight clear implications for tobacco or alcohol policy due to identified gaps in the current evidence base. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco Review question We reviewed the evidence to establish by how much the amounts of food, alcohol or tobacco adults and children select or consume change in response to being presented with larger or smaller-sized (or differently shaped) portions or packages of these products, or of items of tableware (such as plates or glasses) used to consume them. Study characteristics This review includes 72 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2013 that compared at least two groups of participants, each presented with a different size of a portion, package or item of tableware. Included studies measured the amounts of food, alcohol or tobacco selected and/or consumed by participants, typically over a period of one day or less. Almost all of the included studies investigated food, with only three tobacco studies and no alcohol studies found. Almost all assessed participants' responses to different sizes rather than different shapes. The average age of participants in the different studies ranged from three to 55 years, with more studies involving adults than children and most conducted in the USA. Sources of funding were reported for the majority of studies and there was no evidence of study funding by agencies with commercial interests in their results. Key findings and quality of evidence Effects of size on consumption: We found evidence that people consistently ate more food or drank more non-alcoholic drinks when offered larger-sized portions, packages or items of tableware than when offered smaller-sized versions. We estimate the size of this effect to be small to moderate among both children and adults. If an effect of this size were sustained across the whole diet it would be equivalent to around a 12% to 16% change in average daily energy intake from food among UK adults. We rated the overall quality of the evidence for this effect as moderate, due to concern about study limitations arising from incomplete or unclear reporting of methods and procedures. From three tobacco studies, we found no effect of longer compared with shorter cigarettes on the amounts of tobacco consumed. We rated the overall quality of evidence for this effect as low due to concerns about study limitations and not having enough evidence. Effects of shape on consumption: One study found that adults provided with shorter, wider bottles drank larger amounts of water from them, having already poured more, compared with those provided with taller, narrower bottles. However, we rated the quality of this evidence as very low, due to very serious concerns about study limitations and not having enough evidence (only one study with outcome data from 50 participants). Effects of size on selection: We further found that adults, but not children, consistently chose (selected) more food (including non-alcoholic drinks) when offered larger-sized portions, packages or items of tableware than when offered smaller-sized versions. The estimated size of this effect was again small to moderate. We rated the overall quality of the evidence for this effect as moderate, due to concern about study limitations. Effects of shape on selection: Evidence from three studies suggested that adults and children provided with shorter, wider bottles or glasses selected increased quantities of non-alcoholic beverages for subsequent consumption, compared with those provided with taller, narrower bottles or glasses. We rated the quality of this evidence as low, again due to concerns about study limitations and unexplained variation in effects between the three studies. Conclusions Overall, this review provides the most conclusive evidence to date that acting to reduce the size, availability and appeal of larger-sized portions, packages and tableware has potential to reduce the quantities of food that people select and consume by meaningful amounts. However, it is uncertain whether reducing portions at the smaller end of the size range can be as effective in reducing food consumption as reductions at the larger end of the range. Our findings highlight the need for further research that aims to reduce uncertainties about these effects and address identified gaps in the evidence base, including not having enough evidence for longer-term effects and the absence of evidence about alcohol products.

Highlights • Mock adverts were used to prime healthy eating in two studies. • The primes increased fruit preference in more educated and hungry individuals. • Priming did not alter fruit preference in less educated or non-hungry individuals. • The mechanism of prime action may be dependent on participant characteristics. • Primes effective in some participants cannot be assumed to be effective in others., Objective In the context of a food purchasing environment filled with advertising and promotions, and an increased desire from policy makers to guide individuals toward choosing healthier foods, this study tests whether priming methods that use healthy food adverts to increase preference for healthier food generalize to a representative population. MethodsIn two studies (Study 1 n = 143; Study 2 n = 764), participants were randomly allocated to a prime condition, where they viewed fruit and vegetable advertisements, or a control condition, with no advertisements. A subsequent forced choice task assessed preference between fruits and other sweet snacks. Additional measures included current hunger and thirst, dietary restraint, age, gender, education and self-reported weight and height. ResultsIn Study 1, hunger reduced preferences for fruits (OR (95% CI) = 0.38 (0.26–0.56), p

Objective Previous studies have shown that estimations of the calorie content of an unhealthy main meal food tend to be lower when the food is shown alongside a healthy item (e.g. fruit or vegetables) than when shown alone. This effect has been called the negative calorie illusion and has been attributed to averaging the unhealthy (vice) and healthy (virtue) foods leading to increased perceived healthiness and reduced calorie estimates. The current study aimed to replicate and extend these findings to test the hypothesized mediating effect of ratings of healthiness of foods on calorie estimates. Methods In three online studies, participants were invited to make calorie estimates of combinations of foods. Healthiness ratings of the food were also assessed. Results The first two studies failed to replicate the negative calorie illusion. In a final study, the use of a reference food, closely following a procedure from a previously published study, did elicit a negative calorie illusion. No evidence was found for a mediating role of healthiness estimates. Conclusion The negative calorie illusion appears to be a function of the contrast between a food being judged and a reference, supporting the hypothesis that the negative calorie illusion arises from the use of a reference-dependent anchoring and adjustment heuristic and not from an ‘averaging’ effect, as initially proposed. This finding is consistent with existing data on sequential calorie estimates, and highlights a significant impact of the order in which foods are viewed on how foods are evaluated.

Increasing the consumption of fruit and vegetables is a central component of improving population health. Reasons people give for choosing one food over another suggest health is of lower importance than taste. This study assesses the impact of using a simple descriptive label to highlight the taste as opposed to the health value of fruit on the likelihood of its selection. Participants (N=439) were randomly allocated to one of five groups that varied in the label added to an apple: apple; healthy apple; succulent apple; healthy and succulent apple; succulent and healthy apple. The primary outcome measure was selection of either an apple or a chocolate bar as a dessert. Measures of the perceived qualities of the apple (taste, health, value, quality, satiety) and of participant characteristics (restraint, belief that tasty foods are unhealthy, BMI) were also taken. When compared with apple selection without any descriptor (50%), the labels combining both health and taste descriptors significantly increased selection of the apple ('healthy & succulent' 65.9% and 'succulent & healthy' 62.4%), while the use of a single descriptor had no impact on the rate of apple selection ('healthy' 50.5% and 'succulent' 52%). The strongest predictors of individual dessert choice were the taste score given to the apple, and the lack of belief that healthy foods are not tasty. Interventions that emphasize the taste attributes of healthier foods are likely to be more effective at achieving healthier diets than those emphasizing health alone.

Background Estimates of the risk of developing Crohn's disease (CD) can be made using DNA testing for mutations in the NOD2 (CARD15) gene, family history, and smoking status. Smoking doubles the risk of CD, a risk that is reduced by stopping. CD therefore serves as a timely and novel paradigm within which to assess the utility of predictive genetic testing to motivate behaviour change to reduce the risk of disease. The aim of the study is to describe the impact upon stopping smoking of communicating a risk of developing CD that incorporates DNA analysis. We will test the following main hypothesis: Smokers who are first degree relatives (FDRs) of CD probands are more likely to make smoking cessation attempts following communication of risk estimates of developing CD that incorporate DNA analysis, compared with an equivalent communication that does not incorporate DNA analysis. Methods/design A parallel groups randomised controlled trial in which smokers who are FDRs of probands with CD are randomly allocated in families to undergo one of two types of assessment of risk for developing CD based on either: i. DNA analysis, family history of CD and smoking status, or ii. Family history of CD and smoking status The primary outcome is stopping smoking for 24 hours or longer in the six months following provision of risk information. The secondary outcomes are seven-day smoking abstinence at one week and six month follow-ups. Randomisation of 470 smoking FDRs of CD probands, with 400 followed up (85%), provides 80% power to detect a difference in the primary outcome of 14% between randomised arms, at the 5% significance level. Discussion This trial provides one of the strongest tests to date of the impact of communicating DNA-based risk assessment on risk-reducing behaviour change. Specific issues regarding the choice of trial design are discussed. Trial Registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN21633644

Background The behavioural impact of pharmacogenomics is untested; informing smokers of genetic test results for responsiveness to smoking cessation medication may increase adherence to this medication. The objective of this trial is to estimate the impact upon adherence to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) of informing smokers that their oral dose of NRT has been tailored to a DNA analysis. Hypotheses to be tested are as follows: IAdherence to NRT is greater among smokers informed that their oral dose of NRT is tailored to an analysis of DNA (genotype), compared to one tailored to nicotine dependence questionnaire score (phenotype). II Amongst smokers who fail to quit at six months, motivation to make another quit attempt is lower when informed that their oral dose of NRT was tailored to genotype rather than phenotype. Methods/Design An open label, parallel groups randomised trial in which 630 adult smokers (smoking 10 or more cigarettes daily) using National Health Service (NHS) stop smoking services in primary care are randomly allocated to one of two groups: i. NRT oral dose tailored by DNA analysis (OPRM1 gene) (genotype), or ii. NRT oral dose tailored by nicotine dependence questionnaire score (phenotype) The primary outcome is proportion of prescribed NRT consumed in the first 28 days following an initial quit attempt, with the secondary outcome being motivation to make another quit attempt, amongst smokers not abstinent at six months. Other outcomes include adherence to NRT in the first seven days and biochemically validated smoking abstinence at six months. The primary outcome will be collected on 630 smokers allowing sufficient power to detect a 7.5% difference in mean proportion of NRT consumed using a two-tailed test at the 5% level of significance between groups. The proportion of all NRT consumed in the first four weeks of quitting will be compared between arms using an independent samples t-test and by estimating the 95% confidence interval for observed between-arm difference in mean NRT consumption (Hypothesis I). Motivation to make another quit attempt will be compared between arms in those failing to quit by six months (Hypothesis II). Discussion This is the first clinical trial evaluating the behavioural impact on adherence of prescribing medication using genetic rather than phenotypic information. Specific issues regarding the choice of design for trials of interventions of this kind are discussed. Trial details Funder: Medical Research Council (MRC) Grant number: G0500274 ISRCTN: 14352545 Date trial stated: June 2007 Expected end date: December 2009 Expected reporting date: December 2010

The worldwide prevalence of obesity and overweight has risen substantially over the past three decades with no country yet achieving a reduction.1 International and national ambitions to “end childhood obesity”2 and “reduce non-communicable diseases by 25% by 2025”3 are unmatched by policiesthat could realise them. The causes of obesity are complex but overconsumption of food and sugary drinksis a critical proximal determinant, driven in part by large portion sizes. The importance of developing interventions and policies to reduce the size, availability, and appeal of large portionsis underscored by the compelling evidence that people eat and drink more from larger portions.

Background Consumption of sugars-sweetened beverages (SSB) increases energy intake and the risk of obesity. Large packages increase consumption of food, implying that smaller bottle sizes may help curb SSB consumption, but there is a lack of relevant evidence relating to these products. This study explores the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of different bottle sizes on SSB consumption at home. Methods Households in Cambridge, England, which purchased at least 2 l of regular cola drinks per week, received a set amount of cola each week for four weeks, in bottles of one of four sizes (1500 ml, 1000 ml, 500 ml, or 250 ml) in random order. The total volume received consisted of a modest excess of households’ typical weekly purchasing, but was further increased for half the study households to avoid ceiling effects. Consumption was measured by recording the number of empty bottles at the end of each week. Eligible households were invited to complete a run-in period to assess levels of active participation. Results Thirty-seven of 111 eligible households with an interest in the study completed the run-in period. The study procedures proved feasible. The target for recruitment (n = 16 households) was exceeded. Measuring consumption was feasible: over three quarters (n = 30/37) of households returned all bottles on the majority (n = 88/101) of the study weeks completed across households. The validity of this measure was compromised by guests from outside the household who drank the study cola (n = 18/37 households on 48/101 study weeks) and consumption of the study cola outside the home. Supplying enhanced volumes of cola to nine households was associated with higher consumption (11,592 ml vs 7869 ml). The intervention and study procedures were considered acceptable. Thirteen households correctly identified the study aims. Conclusion The findings support the feasibility and acceptability of running a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of presenting a fixed volume of SSB in different bottle sizes on in-home consumption. However, methods that avoid consumption being influenced by the amount of cola supplied weekly by the study and that capture out of home consumption are needed before conducting a randomised controlled trial. Trial registration ISRCTN14964130; Registered on 18th May, 2015.

BACKGROUND: Wine glass size can influence both perceptions of portion size and the amount poured, but its impact upon purchasing and consumption is unknown. This study aimed to examine the impact of wine glass size on wine sales for on-site consumption, keeping portion size constant.METHODS: In one establishment (with separate bar and restaurant areas) in Cambridge, England, wine glass size (Standard; Larger; Smaller) was changed over eight fortnightly periods. The bar and restaurant differ in wine sales by the glass vs. by the bottle (93 % vs. 63 % by the glass respectively).RESULTS: Daily wine volume purchased was 9.4 % (95 % CI: 1.9, 17.5) higher when sold in larger compared to standard-sized glasses. This effect seemed principally driven by sales in the bar area (bar: 14.4 % [3.3, 26.7]; restaurant: 8.2 % [-2.5, 20.1]). Findings were inconclusive as to whether sales were different with smaller vs. standard-sized glasses.CONCLUSIONS: The size of glasses in which wine is sold, keeping the portion size constant, can affect consumption, with larger glasses increasing consumption. The hypothesised mechanisms for these differential effects need to be tested in a replication study. If replicated, policy implications could include considering glass size amongst alcohol licensing requirements.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN12018175 . Registered 12(th) May 2015.

Background: Reducing harmful consumption of food, alcohol, and tobacco products would prevent many cancers, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Placing information-based cues in the environments in which we select and consume these products has the potential to contribute to changing these behaviours. Methods: In this review, information-based cues are defined as those which comprise any combination of words, symbols, numbers or pictures that convey information about a product or its use. We specifically exclude cues which are located on the products themselves. We conducted a systematic review of randomised, cluster- randomised, and non-randomised controlled trials to assess the impact of such cues on selection and consumption. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 12 targeted food (most commonly fruit and vegetables), one targeted alcohol sales, and none targeted tobacco products. Results: Ten studies reported statistically significant effects on some or all of the targeted products, although studies were insufficiently homogenous to justify meta-analysis. Existing evidence suggests information-based cues can influence selection and consumption of food and alcohol products, although significant uncertainty remains. Conclusions: The current evidence base is limited both in quality and quantity, with relatively few, heterogeneous studies at unclear or high risk of bias. Additional, more rigorously conducted studies are warranted to better estimate the potential for these interventions to change selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco products. Trial registration: PROSPERO. 2016;CRD42016051884. Key words: Food, alcohol, information-based cues, point of choice, selection, consumption