1
|
Rantala E, Vanhatalo S, Perez-Cueto FJA, Pihlajamäki J, Poutanen K, Karhunen L, Absetz P. Acceptability of workplace choice architecture modification for healthy behaviours. BMC Public Health 2023; 23:2451. [PMID: 38062407 PMCID: PMC10704714 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-17331-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2023] [Accepted: 11/24/2023] [Indexed: 12/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Altering the choice architecture of decision contexts can assist behaviour change, but the acceptability of this approach has sparked debate. Considering hypothetical interventions, people generally welcome the approach for promoting health, but little evidence exists on acceptance in the real world. Furthermore, research has yet to explore the implementers' perspective, acknowledging the multidimensionality of the acceptability construct. Addressing these knowledge gaps, this study evaluated the acceptability of a quasi-experimental implementation-effectiveness trial that modified the worksite choice architecture for healthy eating and daily physical activity. METHODS Fifty-three worksites participated in the 12-month intervention and implemented altogether 23 choice architecture strategies (Mdn 3/site), including point-of-choice prompts and changes to choice availability or accessibility. Retrospective acceptability evaluation built on deductive qualitative content analysis of implementer interviews (n = 65) and quantitative analysis of an employee questionnaire (n = 1124). Qualitative analysis examined implementers' thoughts and observations of the intervention and its implementation, considering six domains of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability: ethicality, affective attitude, burden, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and perceived effectiveness. Quantitative analysis examined employees' acceptance (7-point Likert scale) of eight specific intervention strategies using Friedman test and mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS Implementers considered the choice architecture approach ethical for workplace health promotion, reported mostly positive affective attitudes to and little burden because of the intervention. Intervention coherence supported acceptance through increased interest in implementation, whereas low perceived utility and high intensity of implementation reduced cost acceptance. Perceived effectiveness was mixed and varied along factors related to the implementer, social/physical work environment, employer, and employee. Employees showed overall high acceptance of evaluated strategies (Mdn 7, IQR 6.4-7), though strategies replacing unhealthy foods with healthier alternatives appeared less supported than providing information or enhancing healthy option availability or accessibility (p-values < 0.02). Greater proportion of male employees per site predicted lower overall acceptance (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.2-16.5). CONCLUSIONS Work communities appear to approve workplace choice architecture interventions for healthy eating and physical activity, but numerous factors influence acceptance and warrant consideration in future interventions. The study contributes with a theory-based, multidimensional evaluation that considered the perspectives of implementers and influenced individuals across heterogeneous real-world settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eeva Rantala
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, 70211, Kuopio, Finland.
- VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 02044, Espoo, Finland.
- VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Kuopio, 70211, Finland.
- Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), 00271, Helsinki, Finland.
| | - Saara Vanhatalo
- VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 02044, Espoo, Finland
| | | | - Jussi Pihlajamäki
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, 70211, Kuopio, Finland
- Department of Medicine, Endocrinology and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio University Hospital, 70029 KYS, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Kaisa Poutanen
- VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 02044, Espoo, Finland
- VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Kuopio, 70211, Finland
| | - Leila Karhunen
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, 70211, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Pilvikki Absetz
- Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, 33520, Tampere, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Nykänen EP, Hoppu U, Löyttyniemi E, Sandell M. Nudging Finnish Adults into Replacing Red Meat with Plant-Based Protein via Presenting Foods as Dish of the Day and Altering the Dish Sequence. Nutrients 2022; 14:nu14193973. [PMID: 36235625 PMCID: PMC9573669 DOI: 10.3390/nu14193973] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Revised: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
This study investigated whether Finnish working-aged omnivores (n = 163) could be nudged into replacing red meat with a fava-bean-based protein source via “Dish of the Day” (DoD) and main dish sequence alteration (SA) strategies in a controlled real-world Finnish self-service buffet restaurant with smart scales (Flavoria® Multidisciplinary Research Platform). A further aim was to study whether the effectiveness of the strategies differed by gender, age, and body mass index. The participants were assigned one of four experimental treatments: standard menu (T1), DoD (T2), standard menu + SA (T3), or DoD + SA (T4). The participants could choose any amount or combination of salad components and casseroles with minced meat or fava bean protein. Being subjected to a DoD menu and/or SA had no effect on main dish choice or the share of the meat-based dish in the meal weight. Men were more likely to choose a meat-based main dish and had a higher share of the meat dish in the meal weight compared to women, but no differences were observed between those aged 18–29, 30–44, or 45–65 years or those who were normal weight, overweight, or obese. Future studies should have a larger sample size and investigate food choice motives such as price or environmental awareness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esa-Pekka Nykänen
- Functional Foods Forum, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland
- Correspondence:
| | - Ulla Hoppu
- Functional Foods Forum, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland
| | | | - Mari Sandell
- Functional Foods Forum, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland
- Department of Food and Nutrition, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsingin Yliopisto, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Migliavada R, Ricci FZ, Denti F, Haghverdian D, Torri L. Is purchasing of vegetable dishes affected by organic or local labels? Empirical evidence from a university canteen. Appetite 2022; 173:105995. [DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2022.105995] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2021] [Revised: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
6
|
Rantala E, Vanhatalo S, Tilles-Tirkkonen T, Kanerva M, Hansen PG, Kolehmainen M, Männikkö R, Lindström J, Pihlajamäki J, Poutanen K, Karhunen L, Absetz P. Choice Architecture Cueing to Healthier Dietary Choices and Physical Activity at the Workplace: Implementation and Feasibility Evaluation. Nutrients 2021; 13:nu13103592. [PMID: 34684592 PMCID: PMC8538928 DOI: 10.3390/nu13103592] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2021] [Revised: 10/09/2021] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Redesigning choice environments appears a promising approach to encourage healthier eating and physical activity, but little evidence exists of the feasibility of this approach in real-world settings. The aim of this paper is to portray the implementation and feasibility assessment of a 12-month mixed-methods intervention study, StopDia at Work, targeting the environment of 53 diverse worksites. The intervention was conducted within a type 2 diabetes prevention study, StopDia. We assessed feasibility through the fidelity, facilitators and barriers, and maintenance of implementation, building on implementer interviews (n = 61 informants) and observations of the worksites at six (t1) and twelve months (t2). We analysed quantitative data with Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests and qualitative data with content analysis. Intervention sites altogether implemented 23 various choice architectural strategies (median 3, range 0-14 strategies/site), employing 21 behaviour change mechanisms. Quantitative analysis found implementation was successful in 66%, imperfect in 25%, and failed in 9% of evaluated cases. These ratings were independent of the ease of implementation of applied strategies and reminders that implementers received. Researchers' assistance in intervention launch (p = 0.02) and direct contact to intervention sites (p < 0.001) predicted higher fidelity at t1, but not at t2. Qualitative content analysis identified facilitators and barriers related to the organisation, intervention, worksite environment, implementer, and user. Contributors of successful implementation included apt implementers, sufficient implementer training, careful planning, integration into worksite values and activities, and management support. After the study, 49% of the worksites intended to maintain the implementation in some form. Overall, the choice architecture approach seems suitable for workplace health promotion, but a range of practicalities warrant consideration while designing real-world implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eeva Rantala
- VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Tietotie 2, P.O. Box 1000, 02044 Espoo, Finland; (S.V.); (M.K.); (K.P.)
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland; (T.T.-T.); (M.K.); (R.M.); (J.P.); (L.K.); (P.A.)
- Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, 00271 Helsinki, Finland;
- Correspondence:
| | - Saara Vanhatalo
- VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Tietotie 2, P.O. Box 1000, 02044 Espoo, Finland; (S.V.); (M.K.); (K.P.)
| | - Tanja Tilles-Tirkkonen
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland; (T.T.-T.); (M.K.); (R.M.); (J.P.); (L.K.); (P.A.)
| | - Markus Kanerva
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland; (T.T.-T.); (M.K.); (R.M.); (J.P.); (L.K.); (P.A.)
- D Department, Tikkurila Campus, Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Ratatie 22, 01300 Vantaa, Finland
| | - Pelle Guldborg Hansen
- Department of Communication, Business & Information Technologies, Universitetsvej 1, Roskilde University, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark;
| | - Marjukka Kolehmainen
- VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Tietotie 2, P.O. Box 1000, 02044 Espoo, Finland; (S.V.); (M.K.); (K.P.)
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland; (T.T.-T.); (M.K.); (R.M.); (J.P.); (L.K.); (P.A.)
| | - Reija Männikkö
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland; (T.T.-T.); (M.K.); (R.M.); (J.P.); (L.K.); (P.A.)
| | - Jaana Lindström
- Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, 00271 Helsinki, Finland;
| | - Jussi Pihlajamäki
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland; (T.T.-T.); (M.K.); (R.M.); (J.P.); (L.K.); (P.A.)
- Department of Medicine, Endocrinology and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio University Hospital, P.O. Box 100, 70029 Kuopio, Finland
| | - Kaisa Poutanen
- VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Tietotie 2, P.O. Box 1000, 02044 Espoo, Finland; (S.V.); (M.K.); (K.P.)
| | - Leila Karhunen
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland; (T.T.-T.); (M.K.); (R.M.); (J.P.); (L.K.); (P.A.)
| | - Pilvikki Absetz
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland; (T.T.-T.); (M.K.); (R.M.); (J.P.); (L.K.); (P.A.)
- Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Arvo Ylpön katu 34, 33520 Tampere, Finland
| |
Collapse
|