There is growing evidence for the effectiveness of choice architecture or 'nudge' interventions to change a range of behaviours including the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and food. Public acceptability is key to implementing these and other interventions. However, few studies have assessed public acceptability of these interventions, including the extent to which acceptability varies with the type of intervention, the target behaviour and with evidence of intervention effectiveness. These were assessed in an online study using a between-participants full factorial design with three factors: Policy (availability vs size vs labelling vs tax) x Behaviour (alcohol consumption vs tobacco use vs high-calorie snack food consumption) x Evidence communication (no message vs assertion of policy effectiveness vs assertion and quantification of policy effectiveness [e.g., a 10% change in behaviour]). Participants (N = 7058) were randomly allocated to one of the 36 groups. The primary outcome was acceptability of the policy. Acceptability differed across policy, behaviour and evidence communication (all ps < .001). Labelling was the most acceptable policy (supported by 78%) and Availability the least (47%). Tobacco use was the most acceptable behaviour to be targeted by policies (73%) compared with policies targeting Alcohol (55%) and Food (54%). Relative to the control group (60%), asserting evidence of effectiveness increased acceptability (63%); adding a quantification to this assertion did not significantly increase this further (65%). Public acceptability for nudges and taxes to improve population health varies with the behaviour targeted and the type of intervention but is generally favourable. Communicating that these policies are effective can increase support by a small but significant amount, suggesting that highlighting effectiveness could contribute to mobilising public demand for policies. While uncertainty remains about the strength of public support needed, this may help overcome political inertia and enable action on behaviours that damage population and planetary health.

Low public support for government interventions in health, environment and other policy domains can be a barrier to implementation. Communicating evidence of policy effectiveness has been used to influence attitudes towards policies, with mixed results. This review provides the first systematic synthesis of such studies. Eligible studies were randomized controlled experiments that included an intervention group that provided evidence of a policy's effectiveness or ineffectiveness at achieving a salient outcome, and measured policy support. From 6498 abstracts examined, there were 45 effect sizes from 36 eligible studies. In total, 35 (N= 30 858) communicated evidence of effectiveness, and 10 (N= 5078) communicated evidence of ineffectiveness. Random effects meta-analysis revealed that communicating evidence of a policy's effectiveness increased support for the policy (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI [0.07, 0.15],p< 0.0001), equivalent to support increasing from 50% to 54% (95% CI [53%, 56%]). Communicating evidence of ineffectiveness decreased policy support (SMD = −0.14, 95% CI [−0.22, −0.06],p< 0.001), equivalent to support decreasing from 50% to 44% (95% CI [41%, 47%]). These findings suggest that public support for policies in a range of domains is sensitive to evidence of their effectiveness, as well as their ineffectiveness.

Increasing the prices of products that harm health is an effective intervention for changing behaviour to improve health but public support for such interventions is generally low. The current paper investigates whether communicating evidence of a policy's effectiveness at tackling the focal problem could increase support. Across three studies we develop an infographic for communicating quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of a hypothetical tax to tackle childhood obesity. We investigate first, whether communicating evidence of effectiveness increases (a) perceived effectiveness (Studies 1,2,3) and (b) support for the policy, and second, whether any increase in perceived effectiveness mediates an increase in support (Studies 1 & 3). In all three studies (combined N = 9654) communicating evidence of effectiveness for the intervention increased perceived effectiveness. In Study 1, communicating evidence did not change support for the policy. Variations of the infographic were developed in Study 2 with one emerging as clearer and easier to comprehend. This infographic was therefore used in Study 3 in which it increased support for the tax from 45% to 49%, an effect that was mediated by perceived effectiveness. The effect sizes were small but probably meaningful at a population level. The results of these three studies suggest the potential for presenting quantitative evidence of intervention effectiveness to increase public support. Much uncertainty remains about the most effective ways of presenting this evidence, whether similar effects are achieved by presenting unquantified evidence and whether larger effects might be achieved by presenting information other than effectiveness.

Background: Overconsumption of energy from food is a major contributor to the high rates of overweight and obesity in many populations. There is growing evidence that interventions that target the food environment may be effective at reducing energy intake. The current study aimed to estimate the effect of decreasing the proportion of higher energy (kcal) foods, with and without reducing portion size, on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias. Methods and findings: This stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated 2 interventions: (i) availability: replacing higher energy products with lower energy products; and (ii) size: reducing the portion size of higher energy products. A total of 19 cafeterias were randomised to the order in which they introduced the 2 interventions. Availability was implemented first and maintained. Size was added to the availability intervention. Intervention categories included main meals, sides, cold drinks, snacks, and desserts. The study setting was worksite cafeterias located in distribution centres for a major United Kingdom supermarket and lasted for 25 weeks (May to November 2019). These cafeterias were used by 20,327 employees, mainly (96%) in manual occupations. The primary outcome was total energy (kcal) purchased from intervention categories per day. The secondary outcomes were energy (kcal) purchased from nonintervention categories per day, total energy purchased per day, and revenue. Regression models showed an overall reduction in energy purchased from intervention categories of −4.8% (95% CI −7.0% to −2.7%), p < 0.001 during the availability intervention period and a reduction of −11.5% (95% CI −13.7% to −9.3%), p < 0.001 during the availability plus size intervention period, relative to the baseline. There was a reduction in energy purchased of −6.6% (95% CI −7.9% to −5.4%), p < 0.001 during the availability plus size period, relative to availability alone. Study limitations include using energy purchased as the primary outcome (and not energy consumed) and the availability only of transaction-level sales data per site (and not individual-level data). Conclusions: Decreasing the proportion of higher energy foods in cafeterias reduced the energy purchased. Decreasing portion sizes reduced this further. These interventions, particularly in combination, may be effective as part of broader strategies to reduce overconsumption of energy from food in out-of-home settings. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN87225572.

Effective interventions for reducing the consumption of products that harm population and planetary health often lack public support, impeding implementation. Communicating evidence of policies’ effectiveness can increase public support but there is uncertainty about the most effective ways of communicating this evidence. Some policies have multiple benefits such as both improving health and the environment. This study assesses whether communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits of a policy increases its support. Participants (n = 4616) nationally representative of the British population were randomised to one of 24 groups in an online experiment with a 4 × 3 × 2 between-subjects factorial design. The messages that participants viewed differed according to the evidence they communicated (no message, effectiveness for changing behaviour, effectiveness for changing behaviour + one policy benefit, effectiveness for changing behaviour + three policy benefits), type of policy (taxation, availability) and the target behaviour (consumption of energy-dense food, alcohol, or meat). The primary outcome was policy support. In a full factorial ANOVA, there was a significant main effect of communicating evidence of effectiveness on policy support, which was similar across policies and behaviours. Communicating three benefits increased support relative to communicating one benefit (d = 0.15; p = 0.01). Communicating one benefit increased support compared to providing evidence for changing behaviour alone (d = 0.13; p = 0.004) or no message (d = 0.11 p = 0.022). Communicating evidence of a policy's benefits increases support for policy action across different behaviours and policies. Presenting multiple benefits of policies enhances public support.