"Why do the Recommendations Keep Changing?" A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Scrollytelling Web Application to Help Members of the Public Understand Better How and Why Public Health Guidelines Change Over Time

NCT07091591 | Active Not Recruiting

• 2 other identifiers: ChangingVR5-172668
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 525
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

This study will be an online 3-arm randomized controlled trial. Here intervention group 1 will receive the intervention in the form of an animated cartoon "scrollytelling" outlining the various changes and reasons for changes in public health guidelines in the context of nutrition (e.g. recommendations on fat intake). Intervention group 2 will have a scrollytelling on the reasons why public health recommendations always change in the context of infectious disease control (e.g. during the COVID-19 pandemic). And finally, the control group will receive no intervention.

Conditions

Social Perception; Psychology

Keywords

Public Health Agency of Canada; Public health guidelines; Scientific skepticism; Nutrition; Food policy; Nutrition guidelines

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Anti-intellectualism

  Anti-intellectualism can be defined as "the refusal to recognize the pre-eminence of intelligence and the value of the sciences". Richard Hofstadter (1963) described anti-intellectualism generally as " a resentment and distrust of the things of the mind and those who represent it" (Hofstadter 1966). This sentiment is captured through a set of six items measuring attitudes towards various authoritative figures and institutions, including medical doctors, scientists, economists , teachers, expert and the Public Health Agency of Canada (Merkley and Loewen 2021). These attitudes are typically assessed using a Likert scale, a widely used semantic rating system in surveys that offers respondents a nuanced range of responses (typically 5 or 7 options) to gauge their perceptions, attitudes, and opinions accurately. Unlike binary "Yes" or "No" responses, this scale allows for a more detailed understanding of how individuals perceive and intercept the issues under investigation.

  Immediately after intervention

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• Knowledge-changing

  Immediately after intervention

Study Arms (3)

Pandemic

EXPERIMENTAL

Web page explaining the reasons for shifting recommendations in the context of a pandemic.

Behavioral: Changing (version: pandemic)

Nutrition

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Web page explaining the reasons for shifting recommendations in the context of nutrition.

Behavioral: Changing (version: nutrition)

Control

NO INTERVENTION

No material of information is provided

Interventions

Changing (version: pandemic) BEHAVIORAL

The application explains that, faced with a complex situation such as a pandemic, decision-makers have to navigate through uncertainty, often without knowing exactly how the situation will evolve. Scientific research guides their choices, but early studies can sometimes prove inaccurate and require adjustments. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some initial studies showed that certain drugs could help, but more rigorous research showed that they were not effective. Over time, accumulated knowledge enables us to better understand the situation and make informed decisions. Lessons learned from past crises help to better prepare for future complex situations.

Pandemic

Changing (version: nutrition) BEHAVIORAL

The intervention discusses the evolving nature of scientific research on diet and health. It explains how initial studies can suggest one thing, only for later studies to offer new insights or clarify previous findings. For example, while early research linked high fat intake with heart disease, more recent studies have shown that some fats, like those in nuts, avocados, and oily fish, are actually beneficial. It emphasizes that science often advances gradually, and rigorous, long-term studies help understanding. It also points out that health recommendations are influenced by multiple factors, and over time, accumulated knowledge enables us to better understand the situation and make informed decisions.

Nutrition

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• We will recruit participants who are aged 18 years or older. They will be able to provide written informed consent, and be able to read and understand French or English. Additionally, they should be able to use a computer.

You may not qualify if:

• We will exclude participants who are younger than 18 years old, unable to provide written informed consent, unable to read or understand French or English, or unable to use a computer.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Laval University: lead

Study Sites (1)

Université Laval

Québec, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada

Location

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, INVESTIGATOR
• Masking Details: We will use computerized randomization within Qualtrics to automatically assign participants to study arms randomly. We will use masking in R statistical software to blind analysts/investigators to the group assignment of each participant.
• Purpose: HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Professor, Dr. Holly witteman

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: July 21, 2025
• First Posted: July 29, 2025
• Study Start: July 24, 2025
• Primary Completion: August 14, 2025
• Study Completion: September 30, 2025
• Last Updated: September 9, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-09

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF
• Time Frame: As soon as the manuscript describing the results is posted as a preprint.
• Access Criteria: No restrictions.

Locations

CA (1)