Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVES: Alcohol consumption is the fifth leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The development and promotion of lower strength alcohol products may help reduce alcohol consumption and associated harms. This study assessed what a sample of UK weekly drinkers perceived to be the target groups and occasions for drinking wines and beers labelled with different verbal and numerical descriptors of lower alcohol strength. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: 3390 adults (1697 wine and 1693 beer drinkers) were sampled from a nationally representative UK panel, and participated in a between-subjects experiment in which participants were randomised to 1 of 18 groups with one of three levels of verbal descriptor (Low vs. Super Low vs. No verbal descriptor) and six levels of V (five levels varying for wine and beer, and no level given). MEASURES: The study gauged participants' perceptions of the type of person that would find the randomised beverage appealing and the type of occasion on which the beverage is likely to be drunk at. RESULTS: A principal component analysis showed that participants perceived pregnant women, sportspeople and those aged 6-13 years old were the target groups for products labelled with 0V or the verbal descriptors Low or Super Low, whereas men, women, and those aged above 18 were perceived as the target groups for products labelled with higher V. Participants also rated the products labelled with 0V or the verbal descriptors Low or Super Low as targeting consumption on weekday lunches, whereas products labelled with higher V were rated as targeting dinner/evening occasions, including parties, holidays and celebrations. CONCLUSIONS: Lower strength products were seen as targeting non-traditional consumers (pregnant women) and occasions (weekday lunchtimes), suggesting these products may be perceived as extensions to regular strength alcoholic drinks rather than as substitutes for them. ; This report is independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme (Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health [PR-UN-0409-10109]) and a National Institute for Health Research Response Mode Grant [PR-ST-0615-10012]). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arm's length bodies, and other Government Departments. The final version of the report and ultimate decision to submit for publication was determined by the authors.

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. ; The study was funded by the UK Department of Health Policy Research Programme (Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health) (Grant ID: PRUN-0409-10109) ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from the Public Library of Science via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155995