Effect of alcohol label designs with different pictorial representations of alcohol content and health warnings on knowledge and understanding of low‐risk drinking guidelines: a randomized controlled trial: a randomized controlled trial

Gold, Natalie, Egan, Mark, Londakova, Kristina, Mottershaw, Abigail, Harper, Hugo, Burton, Robyn, Henn, Clive, Smolar, Maria, Walmsley, Matthew, Arambepola, Rohan, Watson, Robin, Bowen, Sarah and Greaves, Felix (2020) Effect of alcohol label designs with different pictorial representations of alcohol content and health warnings on knowledge and understanding of low‐risk drinking guidelines: a randomized controlled trial: a randomized controlled trial. Addiction. ISSN 0965-2140

Text (Effect of alcohol label designs with different pictorial representations of alcohol content and health warnings on knowledge and understanding of low-risk drinking guidelines) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (1MB)

Abstract

Background and aimsThe UK low‐risk drinking guidelines (LRDG) recommend not regularly drinking more than 14 units of alcohol per week. We tested the effect of different pictorial representations of alcohol content, some with a health warning, on knowledge of the LRDG and understanding of how many drinks it equates to.DesignParallel randomized controlled trial.SettingOn‐line, 25 January–1 February 2019.ParticipantsParticipants (n = 7516) were English, aged over 18 years and drink alcohol. Interventions The control group saw existing industry‐standard labels; six intervention groups saw designs based on: food labels (serving or serving and container), pictographs (servings or containers), pie charts (servings) or risk gradients. A total of 500 participants (~70 per condition) saw a health warning under the design.MeasurementsPrimary outcomes: (i) knowledge: proportion who answered that the LRDG is 14 units; and (ii) understanding: how many servings/containers of beverages one can drink before reaching 14 units (10 questions, average distance from correct answer).FindingsIn the control group, 21.5% knew the LRDG; proportions were higher in intervention groups (all P < 0.001). The three best‐performing designs had the LRDG in a separate statement, beneath the pictograph container: 51.1% [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.08–4.54], pictograph serving 48.8% (aOR = 4.11, 95% CI = 3.39–4.99) and pie‐chart serving, 47.5% (aOR = 3.57, 95% CI = 2.93–4.34). Participants underestimated how many servings they could drink: control mean = −4.64, standard deviation (SD) = 3.43; intervention groups were more accurate (all P < 0.001), best performing was pictograph serving (mean = −0.93, SD = 3.43). Participants overestimated how many containers they could drink: control mean = 0.09, SD = 1.02; intervention groups overestimated even more (all P < 0.007), worst‐performing was food label serving (mean = 1.10, SD = 1.27). Participants judged the alcohol content of beers more accurately than wine or spirits. The inclusion of a health warning had no statistically significant effect on any measure.ConclusionsLabels with enhanced pictorial representations of alcohol content improved knowledge and understanding of the UK's low‐risk drinking guidelines compared with industry‐standard labels; health warnings did not improve knowledge or understanding of low‐risk drinking guidelines. Designs that improved knowledge most had the low‐risk drinking guidelines in a separate statement located beneath the graphics.

Item Type:	Article
Official URL:	https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/13600443
Additional Information:	© 2020 The Authors
Divisions:	CPNSS
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Date Deposited:	18 Mar 2021 09:57
Last Modified:	12 Dec 2024 02:29
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/109217

Actions (login required)

View Item