Food PreferencesNCT03337633
Effects of Restaurant Menu Design on Food Ordering Outcomes
A study testing Menu design in people with Food Preferences, run by University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Trial summary
High cognitive load activities can influence energy intake from food. It is unknown how restaurant menu designs may affect patrons in terms of cognitive demand and subsequent ordering of food.Objective: Our objective was to develop and experimentally test menu designs that differ in cognitive load to test the… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 19 to 35 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Food Preferences
- What is being tested?
- Menu design
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 61 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Apr 2014to 20 Mar 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 19 to 35 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Normal vision or corrective lenses
- Normal hearing or a hearing aid
- A moderate level of English proficiency or greater
- Free from current food restrictions
- Normal vision or corrective lenses
- Normal hearing or a hearing aid
Show all 9Show fewer
- A moderate level of English proficiency or greater
- Free from current food restrictions
- Qualifying as a restrained eater by the Cognitive Restraint scale on the Eating Inventory (score of 6 for men and 10 for women)
Who cannot join
- Unwilling/uninterested in participation
- Currently taking any β-blocker medications
- Any serious skin conditions on the hands (because of galvanic skin sensors worn for the protocol)
- Experiment 2
- Unwilling/uninterested in participation
- Currently taking any β-blocker medications
- Any serious skin conditions on the hands (because of galvanic skin sensors worn for the protocol)
About this study
Official title: Effects of Menu Design on Psychophysiological Measures of Cognitive Load and Food Ordering Outcomes
High cognitive load activities can influence energy intake from food. It is unknown how restaurant menu designs may affect patrons in terms of cognitive demand and subsequent ordering of food.Objective: Our objective was to develop and experimentally test menu designs that differ in cognitive load to test the subjective and objective stress measures on food ordering.
Read the detailed description
For the first experiment, a parallel randomized trial of healthy young adults (n= 30) was conducted to compare ordering from one of two menu designs (easy - E, hard - H) developed in a prior pilot study. In the second experiment, restrained eaters were specifically recruited and asked to fast before the experiment to determine the influence of cognitive load of menus on energy ordered (n=31). Galvanic skin response was used as an objective proxy for relative cognitive load, and questionnaires were used to assess perceptions of the menus. The main outcomes were the number of items ordered and total energy of the items ordered (in kilocalories).
- Conditions
- Food Preferences
- Being tested
- Menu design
- Keywords
- cognitive load, galvanic skin response, meal size, kilocalories, menu design
- Medical subject headings
- Food Preferences
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Menu designBehavioural
Participants were given 5 minutes to order a hypothetical meal from the assigned test menu by circling all items they wanted to order.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Experiment 1 Easy | Active comparator | For the first experiment, subjects in this arm received the "easy" menu during the protocol. Receives: Behavioral: Menu design |
| Experiment 1 Hard | Active comparator | For the first experiment, subjects in this arm received the "hard" menu during the protocol. Receives: Behavioral: Menu design |
| Experiment 2 Easy | Active comparator | For the second experiment, subjects in this arm, who qualified as restrained eaters and were asked to fast for 8 hours overnight, received the "easy" menu during the protocol. Receives: Behavioral: Menu design |
| Experiment 2 Hard | Active comparator | For the second experiment, subjects in this arm, who qualified as restrained eaters and were asked to fast for 8 hours overnight, received the "hard" menu during the protocol. Receives: Behavioral: Menu design |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Total Number of Items Ordered
Total number of items ordered off assigned menu
Measured: During the 5-minute menu ordering task
Total Energy of Items ordered
Total Energy (kcals) of items ordered off assigned menu
Measured: During the 5-minute menu ordering task
Secondary outcomes (2)
Subjective ratings of difficulty of using assigned menu to order a meal
Assessed by NASA Task Load Index questionnaire
Measured: Immediately (1 minute) following the 5-minute menu ordering period
Galvanic Skin Response
An objective proxy for relative cognitive load; this measure has been shown to be positively correlated with psychological stress or cognitive challenge as mediated by sympathetic nervous system activity
Measured: During the 5-minute menu ordering task
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Nov 2017
- Study start1 Apr 2014
- Primary completion20 Mar 2015
- Study completion20 Mar 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Food PreferencesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Alabama at BirminghamThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Parallel arm randomized controlled trial
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 61 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Alabama at Birmingham
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Texas Tech University
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Kathryn Kaiser, University of Alabama at Birmingham
- Investigators
- Kathryn A Kaiser, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Asst. Professor, Dept of Health Behavior
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03337633
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- X140313004
- Status last verified
- Nov 2017
- First submitted
- 18 Oct 2017
- Last updated
- 9 Nov 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Pending approval by the University of Alabama at Birmingham's Institutional Review Board (IRB), which we have received for other studies and anticipate receiving here, we will prepare transportable de-identified raw databases and codebooks, which will contain the raw data used in any paper we publish from the proposed research. We will publically deposit such raw data for access by others without restriction in a public repository such as ICPSR. For any investigator requesting data we have not yet published, we will be glad to provide de-identified data and codebooks to the investigators provided that the proposed use does not conflict with our intentions for use.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 Nov 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of Menu Design on Psychophysiological Measures of Cognitive Load and Food Ordering Outcomes
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03337633
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- X140313004
- Conditions
- Food Preferences
- Keywords
- cognitive load, galvanic skin response, meal size, kilocalories, menu design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 61 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Alabama at BirminghamUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Texas Tech University
- Study start
- 1 Apr 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 20 Mar 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Mar 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 9 Nov 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
High cognitive load activities can influence energy intake from food. It is unknown how restaurant menu designs may affect patrons in terms of cognitive demand and subsequent ordering of food.Objective: Our objective was to develop and experimentally test menu designs that differ in cognitive load to test the subjective and objective stress measures on food ordering.
Detailed description
For the first experiment, a parallel randomized trial of healthy young adults (n= 30) was conducted to compare ordering from one of two menu designs (easy - E, hard - H) developed in a prior pilot study. In the second experiment, restrained eaters were specifically recruited and asked to fast before the experiment to determine the influence of cognitive load of menus on energy ordered (n=31). Galvanic skin response was used as an objective proxy for relative cognitive load, and questionnaires were used to assess perceptions of the menus. The main outcomes were the number of items ordered and total energy of the items ordered (in kilocalories).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 4
- Model description
- Parallel arm randomized controlled trial
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Experiment 1 Easy | Active comparator | Behavioral: Menu designFor the first experiment, subjects in this arm received the "easy" menu during the protocol. |
| Experiment 1 Hard | Active comparator | Behavioral: Menu designFor the first experiment, subjects in this arm received the "hard" menu during the protocol. |
| Experiment 2 Easy | Active comparator | Behavioral: Menu designFor the second experiment, subjects in this arm, who qualified as restrained eaters and were asked to fast for 8 hours overnight, received the "easy" menu during the protocol. |
| Experiment 2 Hard | Active comparator | Behavioral: Menu designFor the second experiment, subjects in this arm, who qualified as restrained eaters and were asked to fast for 8 hours overnight, received the "hard" menu during the protocol. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 19 to 35 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Normal vision or corrective lenses
- Normal hearing or a hearing aid
- A moderate level of English proficiency or greater
- Free from current food restrictions
- Normal vision or corrective lenses
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Unwilling/uninterested in participation
- Currently taking any β-blocker medications
- Any serious skin conditions on the hands (because of galvanic skin sensors worn for the protocol)
- Experiment 2
- Unwilling/uninterested in participation
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Menu designParticipants were given 5 minutes to order a hypothetical meal from the assigned test menu by circling all items they wanted to order. | Behavioural | Experiment 1 Easy, Experiment 1 Hard, Experiment 2 Easy, Experiment 2 Hard |
Primary outcome
Total Number of Items Ordered
Time frame: During the 5-minute menu ordering task
Total number of items ordered off assigned menu
Total Energy of Items ordered
Time frame: During the 5-minute menu ordering task
Total Energy (kcals) of items ordered off assigned menu
2 secondary outcomes
Subjective ratings of difficulty of using assigned menu to order a meal
Time frame: Immediately (1 minute) following the 5-minute menu ordering period
Galvanic Skin Response
Time frame: During the 5-minute menu ordering task
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 Nov 2017.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Pending approval by the University of Alabama at Birmingham's Institutional Review Board (IRB), which we have received for other studies and anticipate receiving here, we will prepare transportable de-identified raw databases and codebooks, which will contain the raw data used in any paper we publish from the proposed research. We will publically deposit such raw data for access by others without restriction in a public repository such as ICPSR. For any investigator requesting data we have not yet published, we will be glad to provide de-identified data and codebooks to the investigators provided that the proposed use does not conflict with our intentions for use.
Related trials for Food Preferences
Recruiting
Influence of Social Media Ads on Food Choice - Master Protocol
Food Selection, Food Choices
Recruiting
The Florida ASCENT Study
Cancer, Food Deprivation
Recruiting
Using Single and Combined Nudge Strategies to Promote Healthier Beverage Intake Among College Students
Obesity, Food Selection
Recruiting
Influence of "Likes" in Social Media Food Ads on Black and White Adolescents' Food Purchases - Study 2
Food Selection
RecruitingObservational study
Evolution of Food Oral Processing Behaviours, Food Bolus Formation and Texture Preferences Between 6 to 12 Years Old and Adult Age
Food Oral Processing, Texture Preference
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Kathryn A Kaiser, PhD principal investigator
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Asst. Professor, Dept of Health Behavior
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Menu design in people with Food Preferences, run by University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 9 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 Nov 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Total Number of Items Ordered (time frame: During the 5-minute menu ordering task). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 Nov 2017.