NCT Number: NCT04064775
The 2 interventions aimed to examine whether peer-led nudging on social media may be a way of influencing young adults and adolescents to reduce their self-reported ideal portion sizes of high energy-dense snacks and sugar-sweetened beverages.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me13 year–16 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Two pilot interventions were conducted which examined the influence of peer-led nudging on social media as a way of influencing self-reported ideal portions of high energy-dense snacks and sugar-sweetened beverages. In both interventions the peers posted images of 'their' snacks and beverages, which constituted the recommended portion, onto an Instagram account. The peers also posted images relating to portion sizes, calories and other information related to health but not specifically portion size. It was hypothesised that viewing images of peers' snacks would influence the participants to reduce their own snack and beverage ideal portion sizes.
Intervention 1 lasted for 2 weeks and recruited young adults and used a within-subjects design. Intervention 2 lasted for 4 weeks and recruited adolescents and used a between-subjects design. In intervention 2, participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention or the control condition. This protocol focusses on intervention 2.
In both interventions, participants in the intervention condition were added to an Instagram account and were required to visit Instagram daily and to like all posts. All participants (intervention and control) completed a survey at baseline and at the end of the intervention, and completed quizzes at the end of each week.
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
13-16 years old (intervention 2)
Exclusion criteria
The smart snacking intervention aimed to examine whether peer-led nudging on social media influenced adolescents to reduce their self-reported ideal portion sizes for a variety of HED snacks and SSBs. In intervention 2, participants were randomly allocated to the intervention or control condition, and their ideal portion sizes were assessed through a survey at baseline and intervention end.
Time frame: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4.
Questionnaire measuring participants' self-reported ideal portion size. The aim of the intervention was to reduce the ideal portion size. Participants were provided with different images of food. For each image, judgements were made on whether the portion was 'too little', 'slightly less than I would eat', 'just right', 'slightly more than I would eat', or 'too much'.
Time frame: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4
Questionnaire measuring participants' perceptions of their peers' ideal portion sizes. Participants were provided with images of different energy dense foods. For each image, judgements were made on whether the portion was 'too little', 'slightly less than I would eat', 'just right', 'slightly more than I would eat', or 'too much'. The aim of the intervention was to reduce the ideal portion size.
Time frame: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4
Questionnaire measuring participants' liking and frequency of consumption. Participants' reported frequency of consumption for and liking of each item were assessed based on questions used by Stok, De Ridder, De Vet, & De Wit (2014). Mean frequency and liking scores were calculated for HED snacks and SSBs. A low score for frequency indicated that the item was not eaten frequently, a low score for liking indicated that the item was not liked.
Time frame: Baseline at the beginning of week 1 and intervention end at the end of week 4
Questionnaire measuring participants' intentions. Participants' reported intentions which were assessed based on questions used by Stok, De Ridder, De Vet, & De Wit (2014). Mean intention scores were calculated for HED snacks and SSBs. A low score for intention score indicated that participants did not intend to change their behaviour.
University of Leeds
Other
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06145009
Behavior, Behavior, Animal
Newark, Delaware, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07611201
Anosmia, Appetite
West Lafayette, Indiana, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07600281
Appetite, Behavior
West Lafayette, Indiana, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06504654
Behavior, Behavior, Animal
University Park, Pennsylvania, United States
View Trial Details