dc.contributor.author |
Le, HND |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Gold, L |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Abbott, G |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Crawford, D |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
McNaughton, SA |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Ni Mhurchu, Cliona |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Pollard, C |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Ball, K |
en |
dc.date.accessioned |
2017-11-16T03:10:40Z |
en |
dc.date.issued |
2016-06 |
en |
dc.identifier.citation |
Social Science and Medicine 159:83-91 Jun 2016 |
en |
dc.identifier.issn |
1873-5347 |
en |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2292/36440 |
en |
dc.description.abstract |
Objective Pricing strategies are a promising approach for promoting healthier dietary choices. However, robust evidence of the cost-effectiveness of pricing manipulations on dietary behaviour is limited. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a 20% price reduction on fruits and vegetables and a combined skills-based behaviour change and price reduction intervention. Design and methods Cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was undertaken for the randomized controlled trial Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf). Female shoppers in Melbourne, Australia were randomized to: (1) skill-building (n = 160); (2) price reductions (n = 161); (3) combined skill-building and price reduction (n = 161); or (4) control group (n = 161). The intervention was implemented for three months followed by a six month follow-up. Costs were measured in 2012 Australian dollars. Fruit and vegetable purchasing and consumption were measured in grams/week. Results At three months, compared to control participants, price reduction participants increased vegetable purchases by 233 g/week (95% CI 4 to 462, p = 0.046) and fruit purchases by 364 g/week (95% CI 95 to 633, p = 0.008). Participants in the combined group purchased 280 g/week more fruits (95% CI 27 to 533, p = 0.03) than participants in the control group. Increases were not maintained six-month post intervention. No effect was noticed in the skill-building group. Compared to the control group, the price reduction intervention cost an additional A$2.3 per increased serving of vegetables purchased per week or an additional A$3 per increased serving of fruit purchased per week. The combined intervention cost an additional A$12 per increased serving of fruit purchased per week compared to the control group. Conclusions A 20% discount on fruits and vegetables was effective in promoting overall fruit and vegetable purchases during the period the discount was active and may be cost-effective. The price discount program gave better value for money than the combined price reduction and skill-building intervention. The SHELf trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials Registration ISRCTN39432901. |
en |
dc.publisher |
Elsevier |
en |
dc.relation.ispartofseries |
Social Science and Medicine |
en |
dc.rights |
Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. |
en |
dc.rights.uri |
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm |
en |
dc.title |
Economic evaluation of price discounts and skill-building strategies on purchase and consumption of healthy foods and beverages: the SHELf randomized controlled trial |
en |
dc.type |
Journal Article |
en |
dc.identifier.doi |
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.015 |
en |
pubs.begin-page |
83 |
en |
pubs.volume |
159 |
en |
dc.rights.holder |
Copyright: Elsevier |
en |
pubs.end-page |
91 |
en |
dc.rights.accessrights |
http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Article |
en |
pubs.elements-id |
546018 |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Medical and Health Sciences |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Population Health |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Pacific Health |
en |
pubs.record-created-at-source-date |
2016-11-15 |
en |