Table: Price Incentive Intervention to promote the uptake of healthy eating options in workplace

Page 1

Tables and figures Figure 1 Summary of recruitment process

Primary Recruitment Strategy

Independent workplace sites contacted directly by study team n=37

Workplace sites invited to take part via Healthy Living Award Team email invitation (Summer 2011)

Unsuitable n=1

Sites contacted directly by the Health living Award Team (April/May 2012) n=4

No response n=2

Interested n=4

Nonresponsive n=2

Secondary Recruitment Strategy

Withdrew n=1

Sites participated in the study n=0

Interested n=2

No senior approval to participate n=1

Positive meeting but no further participation n=1

Sites participated in the study n=0

Sites contacted directly by the Healthy Working Lives Programme (Jan – May 2012) n=4

Responded but not interested n=2

Interested n=2

Interested sister site n=1

Sites participated in the study n=2

Sites completed the study n=2

1


Figure 2 EatSMART promotional materials in situ

Site A

Site B 2


Table 1 Site details including recruitment response Site Description

Recruitment Strategy

Location

No of contact (approx)

Edinburgh

Email/ Mail 8

Telephone Calls 4

Financial Services

Primary (HLA Summer 2011)

Oil Refinery

Primary (HLA Summer 2011)

Grangemouth

6

Insurance Company Local authority

Primary (HLA Summer 2011) Primary (HLA Summer 2011)

Edinburgh

Energy company

Call centre (Brewers) Local authority Contract caterers

Outcome

Person Visits 1(x1 personnel) 1(x2 personnel)

Unsuitable: Site anticipated 12% increase in sales & limited capacity with staff at Olympics

8

1(x2 personnel)

Un-responsive: Site stopped returning calls

4

1

0

Un-responsive

Cardenden, Fife

13

12

1 (x1 personnel) 2 (x2 personnel)

Secondary (HLA – Spring 2012)

Glasgow

2

2

0

Secondary (HLA – Spring 2012) Secondary (HLA – Spring 2012) Secondary (HLA – Spring 2012)

Livingston

2

2

0

Withdrew: Due to uncertain future Withdrew: Caterer unwilling to participate Un-responsive

Hamilton

2

3

0

Un-responsive

Headquarters – Stirling Sites across Scotland Cumbernauld

5

4

1(x1 personnel)

Un-responsive

3

2

0

Interested initially but then nothing more following approvals Not interested

Energy Company customer service centre

Secondary (HWL – Spring 2012)

Call Centre

Secondary (HWL – Spring 2012) Secondary (HWL – Spring 2012)

Uddingston

1

0

1

Airdrie

49

9

Intervention completed

Secondary (Via Teleperformance Airdrie – Spring 2012) Secondary (HWL – Spring 2012)

Erskine

9

2

7(x1personnel) 6(x2 personnel) 1(x3 personnel) 1(x1 personnel)

Motherwell

47

9

3(x1 personnel) 6(x2 personnel) 1(x3 personnel)

Intervention completed

151

58

53 person visits

Call centre Call centre

Government call centre

Total number of contacts/visits

3

Un-responsive


Table 2 Summary of EatSMART tailored intervention & marketing package Site A

Site B

Intervention

Combination deal

Combination deal

Specifics

Alternate weeks Soup & Sandwich Soup, Salad & Brown roll £1.80

Two options: Soup & Sandwich Soup, Sandwich & Fruit £2.50 or £3.00

Marketing Strategy

Product New reduced price combination deal Combination is healthy and complies with TL nutrient profiling system Price Reduced price for the 10 week intervention period 10-20% reduction price Following qualitative research price to be below £2 mark (actual £1.80) Place Site A Canteen Promotion Desk awareness strategy (3B’s) Visualisation Strategy Catering staff communication strategy

Product New reduced price combination deal Combination is healthy and complies with TL nutrient profiling system Price Reduced price for the 10 week intervention period 10-20% reduction price (actually may be more given current price range of sandwiches) Following qualitative research price to be (actual £2.50 for soup and sandwich and £3 for soup, sandwich & fruit) Place Site B Canteen Promotion Site B company intranet (new) Visualisation Strategy in canteen only (paperless site) Catering staff communication strategy (small team all on board and aware of intervention – all active players)

Nutrient criteria

Comply with green TL nutrient criteria for 3 out of 4 nutrients below: Fat Saturated Fat Salt Sugar

Price

4


Table 3 Intervention Uptake Week

Site A

Site B

n=1600#

n=550 Snacks

Combo

Estimated Intervention Soup1

Soup

Salads

Sandwiches*

(crisps, chocolate sweets)

Combo

Sandwiches

Snacks

Intervention

% total soup sales

Intervention

% total sandwich sales

(crisps, chocolate, sweets)

Week 1

17

62

16

70

206

27

44

43

8

34

454

Week 2

7

85

20

55

193

23

55

45

1

28

517

Week 3

4

45

29

72

169

31

49

54

0

31

566

Week 4

10

59

13

70

129

27

52

63

0

33

531

Week 5

29

138

20

130

159

21

94

82

0

38

430

Week 6

8

68

2

76

161

8

52

37

0

13

540

Week 7

17

57

13

52

114

7

55

37

0

9

560

Week 8

24

118

17

81

236

22

58

50

0

41

612

Week 9

9

92

18

95

293

9

71

57

1

27

553

17

95

18

74

242

12

72

45

1

27

493

Week 10

# Only ~800 employees on the premises at any one time 1 estimated from production and waste *Included non-intervention items

5


Table 4 Online questionnaire survey respondent demographics Site A

Site B

Pre-intervention n=46

Post-intervention n=28

Pre-intervention n=84

Post-intervention n=53

24(52)

19(68)

24(29)

14(27)

36(20 – 64)

31(21 – 41)

43(23 – 72)

42(23 – 65)

SIMD 1-5* (%)

29(74)

15(75)

39(65)

25(63)

Highest educational achievement –school level qualification (%)

14(30)

5(18)

37(46)

24(45)

Highest educational achievement – post school certificates (%)

14(30)

16(57)

28(35)

18(34)

Highest educational achievement – degree (%)

15(33)

6(21)

14(18)

9(17)

9(27)

7(30)

12(20)

7(20)

19(58)

11(49)

30(50)

17(49)

5(15)

5(22)

18(30)

11(31)

Ethnicity – white (%)

43(94)

27(96)

76(95)

51(96)

Smoker (%)

13(30)

7(26)

8(10)

11(21)

Live with other adults (%)

36(86)

15(56)

72(88)

44(86)

Children in household (%)

18(39)

12(44)

34(42)

19(37)

Part-time working (%)

8(17)

5(17)

16(19)

10(20)

Full-time working (%)

38(83)

23(83)

64(81)

40(80)

BMI >30kg/m2

27(61)

11(41)

40(54)

12(27)

Male (%)

Age (years) Mean (range)

Gross annual household income < 15000 (%) Gross annual household income 15000 - 40000 (%) Gross annual household income >40000 (%)

All percentages reported are valid percentages *Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation deciles 1-5 = most deprived areas

6


Table 5a Reported food intake in last 24 hour Site A

Site B

Pre-intervention n=46 25(57)

Post-intervention n=28 14(52)

Pre-intervention n=84 53(67)

Post-intervention n=53 30(60)

Fruit (Portions) Mean (range)

3.2 (1 - 9)

3.1 (1 - 10)

2.6 (0 – 12)

2.7 (0 – 10)

Vegetables (portions) Mean (range)

2.3 (0 - 5)

2.0 (0 - 8)

2.3 (0 – 9)

2.2 (0 – 10)

Crisps, chocolate,(portions) Mean (range)

1.6 (0 – 6)

1.5 (0 - 7)

2.1 (0 – 8)

1.7 (0 – 4)

25(56)

17(68)

32(40)

17(34)

Sugary drinks (portions) Mean (range)

1.3 (0 – 4)

1.4 (0 – 4)

0.7 (0 – 4)

1.5 (1 – 4)

Meat - >2 portions (%)

3(7)

5(19)

9(11)

6(12)

Fish – at least 1 portion (%)

10(23)

8(30)

23(31)

9(19)

Homemade soup – at least 1 portion (%)

16(36)

8(32)

25(32)

14(30)

Breakfast cereal – at least 1 portion (%)

Sugary drinks – at least 1 portion (%)

7


Table 5b Reported food intake in last 24 hour (paired data) Site B p=1

Pre-intervention n=20 14(82)

Post-intervention n=20 13(69)

1.00

Fruit (Portions) Mean (range) Vegetables (portions) Mean (range) Crisps, chocolate (portions) Mean (range) Sugary drinks, at least 1 portion (%)

1.8 (0 – 5)

2.4(0 - 10

0.31

2.7 (1 – 9)

2.1 (0 – 7)

0.13

2.9 (0 – 6)

1.8 (0 – 4)

0.02*

8(42)

9(50)

1.00

Sugary drinks (portions) Mean (range) Meat, >2 portions (%)

1.6 (1 – 3)

1.7 (1 – 3)

0.77

3(16)

4(20)

1.00

Fish, at least 1 portion (%)

7(39)

4(24)

0.48

Homemade soup, at least 1 portion (%)

7(37)

2(13)

0.13

Breakfast cereal, at least 1 portion (%)

1 Fisher Exact tests (chi squared test for differences in proportions/small samples) or paired student t test for differences in means

8


Table 6 – Reported lunch time spend Site A

Site B

Pre-intervention (n=46) 4 (8.8)

Post-intervention (n=28) 7(25.9)

Pre-intervention (n=83) 7 (8.8)

Post-intervention (n=53) 8(15.4)

£1.51 - £2.50(%)

25 (55.6)

14(51.8)

37 (46.3)

25(48.1)

£2.51 - £3.00(%)

7 (15.6)

2(7.4)

21 (26.3)

9(17.3)

2 (4.4)

0(0)

5 (6.3)

0(0)

5 (11.1)

2(7.4)

10 (12.5)

7(13.5)

2 (4.4)

2(7.4)

0(0)

3(5.8)

< £1.50 (%)

> £3.00(%) No set amount (%) Not sure (%)

9


Table 7a Perceptions of canteen

Choice of items on sale Mean (range)1 Range of healthy eating choices Mean (range)1 Quality of food Mean (range)1 Value for money Mean (range) 1 Marketing materials Mean (range) 1 Promoted items Mean (range) 1 Dining experience Mean (range) 1

Site A Pre-intervention Post-intervention n=46 n=28 2.9 (1 – 5) 3.9 (1-7)

Site B Pre-intervention Post-intervention n=84 n=53 2.8 (1 – 6) 3.3 (1 – 6)

2.6 (1 – 6)

3.8 (1 – 6)

2.6 (1 – 6)

3.5 (1 – 6)

3.1 (1 – 5)

3.3 (1 – 6)

2.6 (1 – 5)

3.3 (1 – 6)

2.3 (1 – 5)

3.1 (1 – 7)

1.9 (1 – 5)

2.5 (1 – 5)

2.3 (1 – 5)

2.8 (1 – 6)

3.0 (1 – 6)

3.7 (1 – 6)

2.2 (1 – 6)

3.0 (1 – 6)

3.1 (1 – 6)

3.6 (1 – 7)

2.6 (1 – 5)

3.3 (1 – 6)

2.6 (1 – 6)

3.0 (1 – 6)

1 Likert scale 1=poor, 7=excellent

10


Table 7b Perceptions of canteen (paired data)

Choice of items on sale Mean (range)1 Range of healthy eating choices Mean (range)1 Quality of food Mean (range)1 Value for money Mean (range) 1 Marketing materials Mean (range) 1 Promoted items Mean (range) 1 Dining experience Mean (range) 1

Pre-intervention n=20 3.0 (1 – 5)

Site B Post-intervention n=20 3.4(1 – 6)

0.008*

2.8(1 – 6)

3.6(1 – 6)

0.08

2.9(1 – 5)

3.3(1 – 5)

0.008*

2.1 (1 – 5)

2.7(1 – 5)

0.035*

3.2 (2 – 5)

3.8(1 – 6)

0.008*

3.4 (1 – 6)

3.8(1 – 7)

0.047*

2.9 (1 – 6)

3.1(1 – 5)

0.004*

1 Likert scale 1=poor, 7=excellent 2 Paired Student t test for comparison of means *Significant p<0.05

11

p=2


Table 8 Uptake of EatSMART promotion

Has purchased combination deal (%)

Site A n=28 12(43)

Site B n=53 15(28)

Has purchased EatSMART sandwich alone (%)

9(35)

8(15)

Has purchased EatSMART salad alone (%)

8(29)

N/A

Has purchased EatSMART soup alone (%)

7(25)

21(40)

Has seen promotional materials for EatSMART promotion (%)

10(36)

30(58)

12


Table 9– Contributions of co-applicants and staff Name Professor Annie S Anderson

Principal Investigator: Study design, study tool development, interpretation of results, writing report.

Dr Dionne Mackison

Research Fellow & Co-applicant: Study design, site recruitment, liaison with HLA & HWL teams, site liaison, study tool development, data collection, data analysis, presentation and interpretation of results, writing report

Mr John Mooney

Co-applicant: Study design, site recruitment, data analysis, writing report

Dr Maureen Macleod

Data analysis, interpretation of results, writing report

Mrs Karen Barton

Data collection, data analysis, site liaison

Ms Lyndsay Watkins

University of Abertay summer intern assisted with administrative and data analysis

Ms Clare Doogan

Graphic design intern designing intervention logo

13


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.