MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389071188 · doi:10.2196/45854

A Behaviorally Informed Mobile App to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Grocery Shopping (SwapSHOP): Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

2023· article· en· W4389071188 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carmen Piernas, Charlotte Lee, Alice Hobson, Georgina Harmer, Sarah Payne, Michaela Noreik, Susan A. Jebb

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Social FundAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of OxfordMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialGrocery shoppingMobile appsQuality (philosophy)AdvertisingMedicineInternet privacyPsychologyBusinessComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Interventions targeting the nutritional quality of grocery shopping have the potential to help improve diet and health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of receiving advice on healthier food purchases through SwapSHOP, a behaviorally informed smartphone app that allows users to scan barcodes of grocery products from the United Kingdom, providing nutritional information and personalized swap suggestions to encourage healthier purchases. METHODS: We randomized adult volunteers in a 6-arm parallel-group controlled feasibility trial. Participants used the SwapSHOP app to record their grocery shopping during a 2-week run-in period and were individually randomized in a 3:1 ratio to either intervention or control arms within 3 strata related to a nutrient of concern of their choice: saturated fat (SFA), sugar, or salt. Participants randomized to the intervention received the SwapSHOP app with a healthier swap function, goal setting, and personalized feedback. Participants in the control group were instructed to use a simpler version of the app to log all their food purchases without receiving any guidance or advice. The primary outcome was the feasibility of progression to a full trial, including app use and follow-up rates at 6 weeks. The secondary outcomes included other feasibility outcomes, process and qualitative measures, and exploratory effectiveness outcomes to assess changes in the nutrient content of the purchased foods. RESULTS: A total of 112 participants were randomized into 3 groups: SFA (n=38 intervention and n=13 control), sugar (n=40 intervention and n=15 control), and salt (n=5 intervention and n=1 control, not analyzed). The 2 progression criteria were met for SFA and sugar: 81% (30/37) and 87% (34/39) of intervention participants in the SFA and sugar groups, respectively, used the app to obtain healthier swaps, and 89% (68/76) of intervention participants and 96% (23/24) of control participants completed follow-up by scanning all purchases over the follow-up period. The process and qualitative outcomes suggested that the intervention was acceptable and has the potential to influence shopping behaviors. There were reductions of -0.56 g per 100 g (95% CI -1.02 to -0.19) in SFA and -1 g per 100 g (95% CI -1.97 to -0.03) in total sugars across all food purchases in the intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: People were willing to use the SwapSHOP app to help reduce sugar and SFA (but not salt) in their grocery shopping. Adherence and follow-up rates suggest that a full trial is feasible. Given the suggestive evidence indicating that the intervention resulted in reductions in sugars and SFA, a definitive trial is necessary to target improvements in health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN13022312; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN13022312.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207