Acceptability of workplace choice architecture modification for healthy behaviours.

Eeva Rantala, Saara Vanhatalo, Federico J A Perez-Cueto, Jussi Pihlajamäki, Kaisa Poutanen, Leila Karhunen, Pilvikki Absetz

Journal: BMC public health 2023;23(1):2451

PMID: 38062407

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Altering the choice architecture of decision contexts can assist behaviour change, but the acceptability of this approach has sparked debate. Considering hypothetical interventions, people generally welcome the approach for promoting health, but little evidence exists on acceptance in the real world. Furthermore, research has yet to explore the implementers' perspective, acknowledging the multidimensionality of the acceptability construct. Addressing these knowledge gaps, this study evaluated the acceptability of a quasi-experimental implementation-effectiveness trial that modified the worksite choice architecture for healthy eating and daily physical activity.

METHODS

Fifty-three worksites participated in the 12-month intervention and implemented altogether 23 choice architecture strategies (Mdn 3/site), including point-of-choice prompts and changes to choice availability or accessibility. Retrospective acceptability evaluation built on deductive qualitative content analysis of implementer interviews (n = 65) and quantitative analysis of an employee questionnaire (n = 1124). Qualitative analysis examined implementers' thoughts and observations of the intervention and its implementation, considering six domains of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability: ethicality, affective attitude, burden, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and perceived effectiveness. Quantitative analysis examined employees' acceptance (7-point Likert scale) of eight specific intervention strategies using Friedman test and mixed-effects logistic regression.

RESULTS

Implementers considered the choice architecture approach ethical for workplace health promotion, reported mostly positive affective attitudes to and little burden because of the intervention. Intervention coherence supported acceptance through increased interest in implementation, whereas low perceived utility and high intensity of implementation reduced cost acceptance. Perceived effectiveness was mixed and varied along factors related to the implementer, social/physical work environment, employer, and employee. Employees showed overall high acceptance of evaluated strategies (Mdn 7, IQR 6.4-7), though strategies replacing unhealthy foods with healthier alternatives appeared less supported than providing information or enhancing healthy option availability or accessibility (p-values < 0.02). Greater proportion of male employees per site predicted lower overall acceptance (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.2-16.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Work communities appear to approve workplace choice architecture interventions for healthy eating and physical activity, but numerous factors influence acceptance and warrant consideration in future interventions. The study contributes with a theory-based, multidimensional evaluation that considered the perspectives of implementers and influenced individuals across heterogeneous real-world settings.

© 2023. The Author(s).

Address: Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, 70211, Kuopio, Finland. [email protected].; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 02044, Espoo, Finland. [email protected].; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Kuopio, 70211, Finland. [email protected].; Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), 00271, Helsinki, Finland. [email protected].; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 02044, Espoo, Finland.; Department of Food, Nutrition and Culinary Science, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.; Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, 70211, Kuopio, Finland.; Department of Medicine, Endocrinology and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio University Hospital, 70029 KYS, Kuopio, Finland.; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Kuopio, 70211, Finland.; Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, 33520, Tampere, Finland.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.