Is altering the availability of healthier vs. less-healthy options effective across socioeconomic groups? A mega-analysis.

IF 5.5
Rachel Pechey, Gareth J Hollands, James P Reynolds, Susan A Jebb, Theresa M Marteau
{"title":"Is altering the availability of healthier vs. less-healthy options effective across socioeconomic groups? A mega-analysis.","authors":"Rachel Pechey,&nbsp;Gareth J Hollands,&nbsp;James P Reynolds,&nbsp;Susan A Jebb,&nbsp;Theresa M Marteau","doi":"10.1186/s12966-022-01315-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Availability interventions have been hypothesised to make limited demands on conscious processes and, as a result, to be less likely to generate health inequalities than cognitively-oriented interventions. Here we synthesise existing evidence to examine whether the impact of altering the availability of healthier vs. less-healthy options differs by socioeconomic position.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Individual-level data (21,360 observations from 7,375 participants) from six studies (conducted online (n = 4) and in laboratories (n = 2)) were pooled for mega-analysis. Multilevel logistic regressions analysed the impact of altering the availability of healthier options on selection of a healthier (rather than a less-healthy) option by socioeconomic position, assessed by (a) education and (b) income.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants had over threefold higher odds of selecting a healthier option when the available range was predominantly healthier compared to selections when the range offered was predominantly less-healthy (odds ratio (OR): 3.8; 95%CIs: 3.5, 4.1). Less educated participants were less likely to select healthier options in each availability condition (ORs: 0.75-0.85; all p < 0.005), but there was no evidence of differences in healthier option selection by income. Compared to selections when the range offered was predominantly less-healthy, when predominantly healthier options were available there was a 31% increase in selecting healthier options for the most educated group vs 27% for the least educated. This modest degree of increased responsiveness in the most educated group appeared only to occur when healthier options were predominant. There was no evidence of any differential response to the intervention by income.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Increasing the proportion of healthier options available increases the selection of healthier options across socioeconomic positions. Availability interventions may have a slightly larger beneficial effect on those with the highest levels of education in settings when healthier options predominate.</p>","PeriodicalId":520799,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity","volume":" ","pages":"88"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9297538/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-022-01315-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Availability interventions have been hypothesised to make limited demands on conscious processes and, as a result, to be less likely to generate health inequalities than cognitively-oriented interventions. Here we synthesise existing evidence to examine whether the impact of altering the availability of healthier vs. less-healthy options differs by socioeconomic position.

Methods: Individual-level data (21,360 observations from 7,375 participants) from six studies (conducted online (n = 4) and in laboratories (n = 2)) were pooled for mega-analysis. Multilevel logistic regressions analysed the impact of altering the availability of healthier options on selection of a healthier (rather than a less-healthy) option by socioeconomic position, assessed by (a) education and (b) income.

Results: Participants had over threefold higher odds of selecting a healthier option when the available range was predominantly healthier compared to selections when the range offered was predominantly less-healthy (odds ratio (OR): 3.8; 95%CIs: 3.5, 4.1). Less educated participants were less likely to select healthier options in each availability condition (ORs: 0.75-0.85; all p < 0.005), but there was no evidence of differences in healthier option selection by income. Compared to selections when the range offered was predominantly less-healthy, when predominantly healthier options were available there was a 31% increase in selecting healthier options for the most educated group vs 27% for the least educated. This modest degree of increased responsiveness in the most educated group appeared only to occur when healthier options were predominant. There was no evidence of any differential response to the intervention by income.

Conclusion: Increasing the proportion of healthier options available increases the selection of healthier options across socioeconomic positions. Availability interventions may have a slightly larger beneficial effect on those with the highest levels of education in settings when healthier options predominate.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

改变健康与不健康选择的可用性对社会经济群体有效吗?mega-analysis。
背景:假设可获得性干预措施对有意识过程的要求有限,因此,与面向认知的干预措施相比,不太可能产生健康不平等。在这里,我们综合现有的证据来检验改变健康与不健康选择的可用性的影响是否因社会经济地位而异。方法:来自6项研究(在线(n = 4)和实验室(n = 2))的个人水平数据(来自7375名参与者的21360个观察结果)进行汇总分析。多水平逻辑回归分析了改变健康选择的可得性对按社会经济地位选择更健康(而不是更不健康)选择的影响,通过(a)教育和(b)收入进行评估。结果:当可获得的范围以健康为主时,参与者选择健康选项的几率比选择不太健康的范围时高出三倍以上(优势比(OR): 3.8;95% ci: 3.5, 4.1)。受教育程度较低的参与者在每个可用条件下都不太可能选择更健康的选择(or: 0.75-0.85;结论:增加健康选择的比例可以增加不同社会经济地位的健康选择的选择。在健康选择占主导地位的环境中,可获得性干预措施可能对受教育程度最高的人产生稍大的有益影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书