Are Dutch adults equally susceptible to nudging and pricing strategies? Secondary analyses of the Supreme Nudge parallel cluster-randomised controlled supermarket trial.

BACKGROUND: Supermarket interventions are promising to promote healthier dietary patterns, but not all individuals may be equally susceptible. We explored whether the effectiveness of nudging and pricing strategies on diet quality differs by psychological and grocery shopping characteristics. METHODS: We used data of the 12-month Supreme Nudge parallel cluster-randomised controlled supermarket trial, testing nudging and pricing strategies to promote healthier diets. Participants were Dutch speaking adults aged 30-80 years and regular shoppers of participating supermarkets (n = 12) in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Data on psychological characteristics (food-related behaviours; price sensitivity; food decision styles; social cognitive factors; self-control) and grocery shopping characteristics (time spent in the supermarket; moment of the day; average supermarket visits; shopping at other retailers; supermarket proximity) were self-reported at baseline. These characteristics were tested for their moderating effects of the intervention on diet quality (scored 0-150) in linear mixed models. RESULTS: We included 162 participants from intervention supermarkets and 199 from control supermarkets (73% female, 58 (± 10.8) years old, 42% highly educated). The interventions had no overall effect on diet quality. Only five out of 23 potential moderators were statistically significant. Yet, stratified analyses of these significant moderators showed no significant effects on diet quality for one of the subgroups and statistically non-significant negative effects for the other. Negative effects were suggested for individuals with lower baseline levels of meal planning (ß - 2.6, 95% CI - 5.9; 0.8), healthy shopping convenience (ß - 3.0, 95% CI - 7.2; 1.3), and healthy food attractiveness (ß - 3.5, 95% CI - 8.3; 1.3), and with higher levels of price consciousness (ß - 2.6, 95% CI - 6.2; 1.0) and weekly supermarket visits (ß - 2.4, 95% CI - 6.8; 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with varying psychological and grocery shopping characteristics largely seem equally (un)susceptible to nudging and pricing strategies. It might be that certain characteristics lead to adverse effects, but this is not plausible, and the observed negative effects were small and statistically non-significant and may be explained by chance findings. Verification of these findings is needed in real-world trials based on larger sample sizes and with the use of more comprehensive interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register ID NL7064, 30th of May, 2018, https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/20990.

Nudging plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy in a real-life online supermarket: A randomized controlled trial.

A shift from predominantly animal-based to plant-based consumption can benefit both planetary and public health. Nudging may help to promote such a shift. This study investigated nudge effects on plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy in an online supermarket. We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled real-life online supermarket trial. Each customer transaction was randomized to a control arm (regular online supermarket) or an intervention arm (addition of placement, hedonic property and dynamic social norm nudges promoting meat and dairy alternatives). Outcomes were the aggregate of meat and dairy alternative purchases (primary outcome), the number of meat purchases, dairy purchases, meat alternative purchases, and dairy alternative purchases (secondary), and retailer revenue (tertiary). Generalized linear mixed models with a Conway-Maxwell Poisson distribution were used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Analyzed data included 8488 transactions by participants (n = 4,266 control arm, n = 4,222 intervention arm), out of which 2,411 (66%) were aged above 45 years, 5,660 (67%) were females, and 1,970 (23%) lived in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. Intervention arm participants purchased 10% (IRR 1.10 (95% CI 0.99-1.23)) more meat and dairy alternatives and 16% (1.16 (0.99-1.36)) more meat alternatives than control arm participants, although these findings are not statistically significant. There was no difference in dairy alternative purchases (1.00 (0.90-1.10)). Intervention arm participants purchased 3% less meats (0.97 (0.93-1.02)) and 2% less dairy products (0.98 (0.95-1.02)) than control participants. Retailer revenue was not affected (0.98 (0.95-1.01)). Online nudging strategies alone did not lead to a statistically significant higher amount of plant-based purchases, but replication of this work is needed with increased study power. Future studies should also consider nudging strategies as part of a broader set of policies to promote plant-based purchases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on 14th of May 2022. ISRCTN16569242 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16569242).

Real-world nudging, pricing, and mobile physical activity coaching was insufficient to improve lifestyle behaviours and cardiometabolic health: the Supreme Nudge parallel cluster-randomised controlled supermarket trial.

BACKGROUND: Context-specific interventions may contribute to sustained behaviour change and improved health outcomes. We evaluated the real-world effects of supermarket nudging and pricing strategies and mobile physical activity coaching on diet quality, food-purchasing behaviour, walking behaviour, and cardiometabolic risk markers. METHODS: This parallel cluster-randomised controlled trial included supermarkets in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods across the Netherlands with regular shoppers aged 30-80 years. Supermarkets were randomised to receive co-created nudging and pricing strategies promoting healthier purchasing (N = 6) or not (N = 6). Nudges targeted 9% of supermarket products and pricing strategies 3%. Subsequently, participants were individually randomised to a control (step counter app) or intervention arm (step counter and mobile coaching app) to promote walking. The primary outcome was the average change in diet quality (low (0) to high (150)) over all follow-up time points measured with a validated 40-item food frequency questionnaire at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included healthier food purchasing (loyalty card-derived), daily step count (step counter app), cardiometabolic risk markers (lipid profile and HbA1c via finger prick, and waist circumference via measuring tape), and supermarket customer satisfaction (questionnaire-based: very unsatisfied (1) to very satisfied (7)), evaluated using linear mixed-models. Healthy supermarket sales (an exploratory outcome) were analysed via controlled interrupted time series analyses. RESULTS: Of 361 participants (162 intervention, 199 control), 73% were female, the average age was 58 (SD 11) years, and 42% were highly educated. Compared to the control arm, the intervention arm showed no statistically significant average changes over time in diet quality (ߠ- 1.1 (95% CI - 3.8 to 1.7)), percentage healthy purchasing (ß 0.7 ( - 2.7 to 4.0)), step count (ߠ- 124.0 (- 723.1 to 475.1), or any of the cardiometabolic risk markers. Participants in the intervention arm scored 0.3 points (0.1 to 0.5) higher on customer satisfaction on average over time. Supermarket-level sales were unaffected (ß - 0.0 (- 0.0 to 0.0)). CONCLUSIONS: Co-created nudging and pricing strategies that predominantly targeted healthy products via nudges were unable to increase healthier food purchases and intake nor improve cardiometabolic health. The mobile coaching intervention did not affect step count. Governmental policy measures are needed to ensure more impactful supermarket modifications that promote healthier purchases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register ID NL7064, 30 May 2018, https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/20990.