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

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.

Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits.

BACKGROUND: Effective interventions for reducing the consumption of products that harm population and planetary health often lack public support, impeding implementation. Communicating evidence of policies' effectiveness can increase public support but there is uncertainty about the most effective ways of communicating this evidence. Some policies have multiple benefits such as both improving health and the environment. This study assesses whether communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits of a policy increases its support. METHOD: Participants (n = 4616) nationally representative of the British population were randomised to one of 24 groups in an online experiment with a 4 × 3 × 2 between-subjects factorial design. The messages that participants viewed differed according to the evidence they communicated (no message, effectiveness for changing behaviour, effectiveness for changing behaviour + one policy benefit, effectiveness for changing behaviour + three policy benefits), type of policy (taxation, availability) and the target behaviour (consumption of energy-dense food, alcohol, or meat). The primary outcome was policy support. RESULTS: In a full factorial ANOVA, there was a significant main effect of communicating evidence of effectiveness on policy support, which was similar across policies and behaviours. Communicating three benefits increased support relative to communicating one benefit (d = 0.15; p = 0.01). Communicating one benefit increased support compared to providing evidence for changing behaviour alone (d = 0.13; p = 0.004) or no message (d = 0.11 p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Communicating evidence of a policy's benefits increases support for policy action across different behaviours and policies. Presenting multiple benefits of policies enhances public support.

Impact of decreasing the proportion of higher energy foods and reducing portion sizes on food purchased in worksite cafeterias: A stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Overconsumption of energy from food is a major contributor to the high rates of overweight and obesity in many populations. There is growing evidence that interventions that target the food environment may be effective at reducing energy intake. The current study aimed to estimate the effect of decreasing the proportion of higher energy (kcal) foods, with and without reducing portion size, on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated 2 interventions: (i) availability: replacing higher energy products with lower energy products; and (ii) size: reducing the portion size of higher energy products. A total of 19 cafeterias were randomised to the order in which they introduced the 2 interventions. Availability was implemented first and maintained. Size was added to the availability intervention. Intervention categories included main meals, sides, cold drinks, snacks, and desserts. The study setting was worksite cafeterias located in distribution centres for a major United Kingdom supermarket and lasted for 25 weeks (May to November 2019). These cafeterias were used by 20,327 employees, mainly (96%) in manual occupations. The primary outcome was total energy (kcal) purchased from intervention categories per day. The secondary outcomes were energy (kcal) purchased from nonintervention categories per day, total energy purchased per day, and revenue. Regression models showed an overall reduction in energy purchased from intervention categories of -4.8% (95% CI -7.0% to -2.7%), p < 0.001 during the availability intervention period and a reduction of -11.5% (95% CI -13.7% to -9.3%), p < 0.001 during the availability plus size intervention period, relative to the baseline. There was a reduction in energy purchased of -6.6% (95% CI -7.9% to -5.4%), p < 0.001 during the availability plus size period, relative to availability alone. Study limitations include using energy purchased as the primary outcome (and not energy consumed) and the availability only of transaction-level sales data per site (and not individual-level data). CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing the proportion of higher energy foods in cafeterias reduced the energy purchased. Decreasing portion sizes reduced this further. These interventions, particularly in combination, may be effective as part of broader strategies to reduce overconsumption of energy from food in out-of-home settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN87225572.

Impact of increasing the availability of healthier vs. less-healthy food on food selection: a randomised laboratory experiment.

BACKGROUND: Environmental cues shape behaviour, but few studies compare the impact of targeting healthier vs. less-healthy cues. One online study suggested greater impact on selection from increasing the number of less-healthy (vs. healthier) snacks. The current study aimed to: (1) extend the previous study by using physically-present snacks for immediate consumption; (2) explore responsiveness by socio-economic position; (3) investigate possible mediators (response inhibition, food appeal) of any socio-economic differences in selection. METHODS: In a between-subjects laboratory experiment UK adults (n = 417) were randomised according to their ID number (without blinding) to one of three ranges of options: Two healthier, two less-healthy ["Equal"] (n = 136); Six healthier, two less-healthy ["Increased Healthier"] (n = 143); Two healthier, six less-healthy ["Increased Less-Healthy"] (n = 138). Participants completed measures of response inhibition and food appeal, and selected a snack for immediate consumption from their allocated range. The primary outcome was selection of a healthier (over less-healthy) snack. RESULTS: The odds of selecting a less-healthy snack were 2.9 times higher (95%CIs:1.7,5.1) in the Increased Less-Healthy condition compared to the Equal condition. The odds of selecting a healthier snack were 2.5 times higher (95%CIs:1.5,4.1) in the Increased Healthier (vs. Equal) condition. There was no significant difference in the size of these effects (- 0.2; 95%CIs:-1.1,0.7). Findings were inconclusive with regard to interactions by education, but the direction of effects was consistent with potentially larger impact of the Increased Healthier condition on selection for higher-educated participants, and potentially larger impact of the Increased Less-Healthy condition for less-educated participants. CONCLUSIONS: A greater impact from increasing the number of less-healthy (over healthier) foods was not replicated when selecting snacks for immediate consumption: both increased selections of the targeted foods with no evidence of a difference in effectiveness. The observed pattern of results suggested possible differential impact by education, albeit not statistically significant. If replicated in larger studies, this could suggest that removing less-healthy options has the potential to reduce health inequalities due to unhealthier diets. Conversely, adding healthier options could have the potential to increase these inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN34626166 ; 11/06/2018; Retrospectively registered.

Impact of health warning labels communicating the risk of cancer on alcohol selection: an online experimental study.

AIMS: 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. DESIGN: A between-subjects randomised experiment with a 2 (image: present versus absent) × 2 (text: present versus absent) factorial design. SETTING: The study was conducted on the online survey platform Qualtrics. PARTICIPANTS: 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. INTERVENTIONS: 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. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants selecting an alcoholic versus a non-alcoholic drink. FINDINGS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Communicating Evidence about the Causes of Obesity and Support for Obesity Policies: Two Population-Based Survey Experiments.

Public support for numerous obesity policies is low, which is one barrier to their implementation. One reason for this low support is the tendency to ascribe obesity to failings of willpower as opposed to the environment. Correlational evidence supports this position. However, the experimental evidence is mixed. In two experimental studies, participants were randomised to receive no message, messages about the environment's influence on obesity (Study 1 & 2), or messages about the environment's influence on human behaviour (Study 1). We investigated whether communicating these messages changed support for obesity policies and beliefs about the causes of obesity. Participants were recruited from nationally representative samples in Great Britain (Study 1 & 2) and the USA (Study 2) (total n = 4391). Study 2 was designed to replicate existing research. Neither study found evidence that communicating the messages increased support for obesity policies or strengthened beliefs about the environment's role in obesity. Study 2, therefore, did not replicate two earlier experimental studies. Instead, the studies reported here suggest that people's beliefs about the causes of obesity are resistant to change in response to evidence and are, therefore, not a promising avenue to increase support for obesity policies.

The impact on selection of non-alcoholic vs alcoholic drink availability: an online experiment.

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.

The impact of 'on-pack' pictorial health warning labels and calorie information labels on drink choice: A laboratory experiment.

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.

Potential impact on prevalence of obesity in the UK of a 20% price increase in high sugar snacks: modelling study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential impact on body mass index (BMI) and prevalence of obesity of a 20% price increase in high sugar snacks. DESIGN: Modelling study. SETTING: General adult population of the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 36 324 households with data on product level household expenditure from UK Kantar FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) panel for January 2012 to December 2013. Data were used to estimate changes in energy (kcal, 1 kcal=4.18 kJ=0.00418 MJ) purchase associated with a 20% price increase in high sugar snacks. Data for 2544 adults from waves 5 to 8 of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2012-16) were used to estimate resulting changes in BMI and prevalence of obesity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The effect on per person take home energy purchases of a 20% price increase for three categories of high sugar snacks: confectionery (including chocolate), biscuits, and cakes. Health outcomes resulting from the price increase were measured as changes in weight, BMI (not overweight (BMI <25), overweight (BMI ≥25 and <30), and obese (BMI ≥30)), and prevalence of obesity. Results were stratified by household income and BMI. RESULTS: For income groups combined, the average reduction in energy consumption for a 20% price increase in high sugar snacks was estimated to be 8.9×103 kcal (95% confidence interval -13.1×103 to -4.2×103 kcal). Using a static weight loss model, BMI was estimated to decrease by 0.53 (95% confidence interval -1.01 to -0.06) on average across all categories and income groups. This change could reduce the UK prevalence of obesity by 2.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval -3.7 to -1.7 percentage points) after one year. The impact of a 20% price increase in high sugar snacks on energy purchase was largest in low income households classified as obese and smallest in high income households classified as not overweight. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the price of high sugar snacks by 20% could reduce energy intake, BMI, and prevalence of obesity. This finding was in a UK context and was double that modelled for a similar price increase in sugar sweetened beverages.

Impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic risk factors: Multiphase feasibility study with randomised controlled component.

Uncertainties remain about the overall effect of sit-stand desks for reducing prolonged sitting among office-based workers. This study assessed the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of the impact of workplace sit-stand desks on overall energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes. It involved four phases: Phase I: online survey; Phase II: workspace auditing; Phase III: randomised intervention (provision of sit-stand desks at work for 3 months); Phase IV: qualitative component. Participants were office-based employees of two companies in Cambridge, England. Among Phase I participants interested in the trial, 100 were randomised to Phase II. Of those with workspaces suitable for sit-stand desks, 20 were randomised to Phase III. Those allocated to the intervention completed Phase IV. Outcomes included: trial participation interest, desk-type (full desks/desk mounts) and assessment location (work/laboratory/home) preferences (Phase I); proportion of workspaces permitting sit-stand desk installation (Phase II); energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes (Phase III); study participation experiences (Phase IV). Data were collected between May 2015 and December 2016. Recruitment and trial implementation were feasible: 92% of survey respondents expressed participation interest; 80% of workspaces could accommodate sit-stand desks; assessments were done in workplaces, preferred by 71%. Sit-stand desk provision reduced workplace sitting time by 94 min/day (95% CI 17.7-170.7). Their impact on energy expenditure and cardio-metabolic outcomes is unclear. The results confirm the feasibility of a trial assessing sit-stand desks' impact on energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes, which should reduce uncertainty concerning the intervention's potential to reduce the health risks of prolonged sitting. Trial registration ISRCTN44827407.

Wine glass size and wine sales: four replication studies in one restaurant and two bars.

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).

What do the British public think of inequality in health, wealth, and power?

Despite the importance of public opinion for policy formation and the political salience of inequality, the public's views about the desirability of equality, not only in health but also in economics and politics, has attracted little attention. We report the results of an on-line survey administered in late 2016 in Great Britain (N = 1667 with a response rate of 35-50%). The survey allowed for testing the sensitivity of public opinion across two other variables: absolute versus relative (everyone should have the same versus inequality should be reduced) and bivariate versus univariate (inequality in one domain is judged in relation to inequality in another versus inequality in a domain is judged independently of other domains). It also allowed examination of how far support for equality in one domain overlaps with support for equality in another. We find that for health, economic and political equality a relative conception of equality attracts more support than an absolute conception, and that for health and political equality a bivariate conception attracts more support than a univariate conception. We also find that conceptions of equality affect how much overlap exists between support for different forms of equality, with a bivariate and relative conception resulting in more overlap than a univariate and absolute conception. We also find evidence for Walzer's 'complex equality' theory in which people tolerate inequality in one domain if it does not control inequality in another.

Are sweet snacks more sensitive to price increases than sugar-sweetened beverages: analysis of British food purchase data.

OBJECTIVES: Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is now advocated, and implemented, in many countries as a measure to reduce the purchase and consumption of sugar to tackle obesity. To date, there has been little consideration of the potential impact that such a measure could have if extended to other sweet foods, such as confectionery, cakes and biscuits that contribute more sugar to the diet than SSBs. The objective of this study is to compare changes in the demand for sweet snacks and SSBs arising from potential price increases. SETTING: Secondary data on household itemised purchases of all foods and beverages from 2012 to 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Representative sample of 32 249 households in Great Britain. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in food and beverage purchases due to changes in their own price and the price of other foods or beverages measured as price elasticity of demand for the full sample and by income groups. RESULTS: Chocolate and confectionery, cakes and biscuits have similar price sensitivity as SSBs, across all income groups. Unlike the case of SSBs, price increases in these categories are also likely to prompt reductions in the purchase of other sweet snacks and SSBs, which magnify the overall impact. The effects of price increases are greatest in the low-income group. CONCLUSIONS: Policies that lead to increases in the price of chocolate and confectionery, cakes and biscuits may lead to additional and greater health gains than similar increases in the price of SSBs through direct reductions in the purchases of these foods and possible positive multiplier effects that reduce demand for other products. Although some uncertainty remains, the associations found in this analysis are sufficiently robust to suggest that policies-and research-concerning the use of fiscal measures should consider a broader range of products than is currently the case.

Effect of snack-food proximity on intake in general population samples with higher and lower cognitive resource.

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%, ß = -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%, ß = -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).

Impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sedentary time: protocol for a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting, an independent risk factor for disease development and premature mortality, is increasing in prevalence in high- and middle-income countries, with no signs of abating. Adults in such countries spend the largest proportion of their day in sedentary behaviour, most of which is accumulated at work. One promising method for reducing workplace sitting is the use of sit-stand desks. However, key uncertainties remain about this intervention, related to the quality of existing studies and a lack of focus on key outcomes, including energy expenditure. We are planning a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sitting time in the short and longer term. To reduce the uncertainties related to the design of this trial, we propose a preliminary study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, allocation, measurement, retention and intervention procedures. METHODS: Five hundred office-based employees from two companies in Cambridge, UK, will complete a survey to assess their interest in participating in a trial on the use of sit-stand desks at work. The workspaces of 100 of those interested in participating will be assessed for sit-stand desk installation suitability, and 20 participants will be randomised to either the use of sit-stand desks at work for 3 months or a waiting list control group. Energy expenditure and sitting time, measured via Actiheart and activPAL monitors, respectively, as well as cardio-metabolic and anthropometric outcomes and other outcomes relating to health and work performance, will be assessed in 10 randomly selected participants. All participants will also be interviewed about their experience of using the desks and participating in the study. DISCUSSION: The findings are expected to inform the design of a trial assessing the impact of sit-stand desks at work on short and longer term workplace sitting, taking into account their impact on energy expenditure and the extent to which their use has compensation effects outside the workplace. The findings from such a trial are expected to inform discussions regarding the potential of sit-stand desks at work to alleviate the harm to cardio-metabolic health arising from prolonged sitting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN44827407.