Search

This study aims to compare alcohol consumption estimates taken from three data sources: Kantar Alcovision (Market Research Data), Health Survey for England (Public Health Survey) and Nielsen/CGA data (Sales Data).

The current research project will aim to identify the contextual characteristics associated with on-trade (e.g. in a bar or restaurant etc.) off-trade drinking occasions (e.g. within the home etc) and mixed-trade (drinking in both on- and off-trade) within a sample of heavy drinkers, defined as those consuming over the low risk drinking guidelines of 14 units per week.

Additional file 1.

AIM: To assess the impact of purchasing wine in 50 cl bottles compared with 75 cl bottles on the amount of wine consumed at home. DESIGN: Cross-over randomized controlled trial with a 'usual behaviour' period of a maximum of 3 weeks between conditions. SETTING: Households in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and eighty-six households that consumed between two and eight 75 cl bottles of wine each week. INTERVENTION: Households were randomized to the order in which they purchased wine in two bottle sizes. During two 14-day intervention periods, households purchased a pre-set volume of wine-based on their baseline self-reported weekly consumption-in either 75 cl bottles or 50 cl bottles. On days 7 and 14 of each study period, participating households sent photographs of each purchased wine bottle. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the volume of study wine in millilitres (ml) consumed during each study period estimated through returned photographs. The secondary outcome was the rate of consumption measured by the mean number of days taken to drink 1.5 litres from each bottle size. FINDINGS: One hundred and sixty-six of 186 enrolled households satisfactorily completed the study. After accounting for pre-specified covariates, 191.1 ml [95% confidence interval (CI) = 42.03-339.2] or 4.5% (95% CI = 1.0-7.9%) more wine was consumed per 14-day period from 75-cl bottles than from 50-cl bottles. Consumption was 5.8% faster (95% CI = -10.9 to -0.4%) from 75 cl bottles than from 50 cl bottles. CONCLUSIONS: Consuming wine at home from 50 cl bottles, compared with 75 cl bottles, may reduce both amount consumed and rate of consumption.

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 less-educated participants, and potentially larger impact of the Increased Less-Healthy condition for higher-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: Retrospectively registered on ISRCTN 11/06/2018 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN34626166).

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.