Consumers' perception of novel foods and the impact of heuristics and biases: A systematic review.

According to the definition adopted in the European Union, novel foods are foods that were not consumed to a significant degree within the Union before May 15, 1997. This includes cultivated meat and insects. Novel foods are meant to play a critical role in the transition towards sustainable food systems. However, their success depends on whether and to what extent they will be incorporated into the diets at the population level. This review investigates consumers' perception of novel food products by narratively synthesising results on the influence of heuristics and biases triggered by emotions, personality traits, and socio-cultural factors. Empirical studies conducted in Western countries and published in English after 1997 were eligible, which led to 182 studies being included. Notably, most included studies focused on insects and cultivated meat. Disgust and fear are shown to be the main emotions driving rejection of novel foods, together with food neophobia and specific cultural norms common across countries included in the scope of the review. Familiarity with novel foods and curiosity both led to higher acceptance. Despite being investigated directly in a minority of studies, heuristics and related biases mostly fell under the "affect," the "natural-is-better," and the "trust" heuristics. The review also discusses to what extent consumers' perception reflects in the regulatory framework applicable to novel foods in the European Union, how it influences the regulation of insects and cultivated meat and which lessons can be drawn for the future of the regulatory framework.

Digital health interventions for all? Examining inclusivity across all stages of the digital health intervention research process.

Digital interventions offer many possibilities for improving health, as remote interventions can enhance reach and access to underserved groups of society. However, research evaluating digital health interventions demonstrates that such technologies do not equally benefit all and that some in fact seem to reinforce a "digital health divide." By better understanding these potential pitfalls, we may contribute to narrowing the digital divide in health promotion. The aim of this article is to highlight and reflect upon study design decisions that might unintentionally enhance inequities across key research stages-recruitment, enrollment, engagement, efficacy/effectiveness, and retention. To address the concerns highlighted, we propose strategies including (1) the standard definition of "effectiveness" should be revised to include a measure of inclusivity; (2) studies should report a broad range of potential inequity indicators of participants recruited, randomized, and retained and should conduct sensitivity analyses examining potential sociodemographic differences for both the effect and engagement of the digital interventions; (3) participants from historically marginalized groups should be involved in the design of study procedures, including those related to recruitment, consent, intervention implementation and engagement, assessment, and retention; (4) eligibility criteria should be minimized and carefully selected and the screening process should be streamlined; (5) preregistration of trials should include recruitment benchmarks for sample diversity and comprehensive lists of sociodemographic characteristics assessed; and (6) studies within trials should be embedded to systematically test recruitment and retention strategies to improve inclusivity. The implementation of these strategies would enhance the ability of digital health trials to recruit, randomize, engage, and retain a broader and more representative population in trials, ultimately minimizing the digital divide and broadly improving population health.

Reducing intervention- and research-induced inequalities to tackle the digital divide in health promotion.

Social inequalities are an important contributor to the global burden of disease within and between countries. Using digital technology in health promotion and healthcare is seen by some as a potential lever to reduce these inequalities; however, research suggests that digital technology risks re-enacting or evening widening disparities. Most research on this digital health divide focuses on a small number of social inequality indicators and stems from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) countries. There is a need for systematic, international, and interdisciplinary contextualized research on the impact of social inequality indicators in digital health as well as the underlying mechanisms of this digital divide across the globe to reduce health disparities. In June 2023, eighteen multi-disciplinary researchers representing thirteen countries from six continents came together to discuss current issues in the field of digital health promotion and healthcare contributing to the digital divide. Ways that current practices in research contribute to the digital health divide were explored, including intervention development, testing, and implementation. Based on the dialogue, we provide suggestions for overcoming barriers and improving practices across disciplines, countries, and sectors. The research community must actively advocate for system-level changes regarding policy and research to reduce the digital divide and so improve digital health for all.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of reactivity to digital in-the-moment measurement of health behaviour.

Self-report measures of health behaviour have several limitations including measurement reactivity, i.e., changes in people's behaviour, cognitions or emotions due to taking part in research. This systematic review investigates whether digital in-the-moment measures induce reactivity to a similar extent and why it occurs. Four databases were searched in December 2020. All observational or experimental studies investigating reactivity to digital in-the-moment measurement of a range of health behaviours were included if they were published in English in 2008 or later. Of the 11,723 records initially screened, 30 publications reporting on 31 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis/ 7 studies in the quantitative synthesis. Eighty-one percent of studies focused on reactivity to the measurement of physical activity indicators; small but meaningful pooled effects were found (Cohen's ds: 0.27-0.30). Only a small number of studies included other behaviours, yielding mixed results. Digital in-the-moment measurement of behaviour thus may be as prone to reactivity as self-reports in questionnaires. Measurement reactivity may be amplified by (1) ease of changing the behaviour (2) awareness of being measured and social desirability, and (3) resolving discrepancies between actual and desired behaviour through self-regulation.