TY - JOUR
T1 - Feasibility of working with a wholesale supplier to co-design and test acceptability of an intervention to promote smaller portions
T2 - an uncontrolled before-and-after study in British Fish & Chip shops
AU - Goffe, Louis
AU - Hillier-Brown, Frances
AU - Hildred, Natalie Jane
AU - Worsnop, Matthew
AU - Adams, Jean M.
AU - Araújo-Soares, Vera
AU - Penn, Linda
AU - Wrieden, Wendy
AU - Summerbell, Carolyn D
AU - Lake, Amelia
AU - White, Martin
AU - Adamson, Ashley J.
PY - 2019/2/19
Y1 - 2019/2/19
N2 - Objectives To explore the feasibility of working with a
wholesale supplier to co-design and deliver, and to assess
the acceptability of, an intervention to promote smaller
portions in Fish & Chip shops.
Design Uncontrolled before-and-after study.
Setting Fish & Chip shops in northern England, 2016.
Participants Owners (n=11), a manager and customers
(n=46) of Fish & Chip shops; and intervention deliverers
(n=3).
Intervention Supplier-led, three-hour engagement
event with shop owners and managers, highlighting the
problem of excessive portion sizes and potential ways
to reduce portion sizes; provision of box packaging to
serve smaller portions; promotional posters and business
incentives.
Data collection In-store observations and sales data
collected at baseline and postintervention. Exit survey
with customers. Semistructured interviews with owners/
managers and intervention deliverers postintervention.
Results Twelve Fish & Chip shops were recruited.
Observational data were collected from eight shops: at
baseline, six shops did not promote the availability of
smaller portion meals; at follow-up, all eight did and five
displayed the promotional poster. Seven out of 12 shops
provided sales data and all reported increased sales of
smaller portion meals postintervention. Of 46 customers
surveyed: 28% were unaware of the availability of smaller
portion meals; 20% had bought smaller portion meals;
and 46% of those who had not bought these meals were
interested to try them in the future. Interviews revealed:
owners/managers found the intervention acceptable but
wanted a clearer definition of a smaller portion meal;
the supplier valued the experience of intervention coproduction
and saw the intervention as being compatible
with their responsibility to drive innovation.
Conclusions The co-design of the intervention with
a supplier was feasible. The partnership facilitated the
delivery of an intervention that was acceptable to owners
and customers. Sales of smaller meal packaging suggest
that promotion of such meals is viable and may be
sustainable.
AB - Objectives To explore the feasibility of working with a
wholesale supplier to co-design and deliver, and to assess
the acceptability of, an intervention to promote smaller
portions in Fish & Chip shops.
Design Uncontrolled before-and-after study.
Setting Fish & Chip shops in northern England, 2016.
Participants Owners (n=11), a manager and customers
(n=46) of Fish & Chip shops; and intervention deliverers
(n=3).
Intervention Supplier-led, three-hour engagement
event with shop owners and managers, highlighting the
problem of excessive portion sizes and potential ways
to reduce portion sizes; provision of box packaging to
serve smaller portions; promotional posters and business
incentives.
Data collection In-store observations and sales data
collected at baseline and postintervention. Exit survey
with customers. Semistructured interviews with owners/
managers and intervention deliverers postintervention.
Results Twelve Fish & Chip shops were recruited.
Observational data were collected from eight shops: at
baseline, six shops did not promote the availability of
smaller portion meals; at follow-up, all eight did and five
displayed the promotional poster. Seven out of 12 shops
provided sales data and all reported increased sales of
smaller portion meals postintervention. Of 46 customers
surveyed: 28% were unaware of the availability of smaller
portion meals; 20% had bought smaller portion meals;
and 46% of those who had not bought these meals were
interested to try them in the future. Interviews revealed:
owners/managers found the intervention acceptable but
wanted a clearer definition of a smaller portion meal;
the supplier valued the experience of intervention coproduction
and saw the intervention as being compatible
with their responsibility to drive innovation.
Conclusions The co-design of the intervention with
a supplier was feasible. The partnership facilitated the
delivery of an intervention that was acceptable to owners
and customers. Sales of smaller meal packaging suggest
that promotion of such meals is viable and may be
sustainable.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061327942&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/ bmjopen-2018-023441
DO - 10.1136/ bmjopen-2018-023441
M3 - Article
C2 - 30782880
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 9
SP - e023441
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 2
M1 - e023441
ER -