Clincosm LogoSign in Get a demo

Improving the Behavioural Impact of Air Quality Alerts

Sponsor
King's College London (Other)
Overall Status
Completed
CT.gov ID
NCT03552198
Collaborator
National Institute for Health Research, United Kingdom (Other), Public Health England (Other)
225
Enrollment
1
Location
4
Arms
1.5
Actual Duration (Months)
145.7
Patients Per Site Per Month

Study Details

Study Description

Brief Summary

The evidence shows that adherence to air quality advice to adopt protective behaviours during pollution episodes is suboptimal, and that the traditional strategy of simply informing people about high pollution episodes is not effective. The aim of the present study was to investigate how to improve the behavioural impact of existing air quality alert messages through a systematic manipulation of key communication variables, including perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, response efficacy, planning, message specificity, etc. Users of an existing air quality alert smartphone application in London, who agreed to take part in the study, were randomly allocated to a control group (i.e. receiving usual health advice associated with the official UK Air Quality Index) or an intervention group receiving health advice associated with air quality alerts in an alternative format (i.e. targeting key variables). Both intended and actual adherence behaviours were investigated. Qualitative data were also collected to understand the reasons for not adopting protective behaviours in response to receiving a real air pollution alert.

Implications of this study include the potential to increase protective behaviours in the general population during air pollution episodes through the development of more effective communication strategies provided via existent air quality alert systems.

Condition or Disease Intervention/Treatment Phase
  • Behavioral: Alternative health advice
 N/A

Detailed Description

According to data released in 2014, in 2012 around 3.7 million people died prematurely in the world as a result of exposure to ambient air pollution ((WHO), 2014). Evidence has shown the negative short- and long-term effects of air pollution on both premature mortality and morbidity from cardiopulmonary disease (for an overview, see (Kelly & Fussell, 2015)). This is particularly a problem in London (Samoli et al., 2016), where levels of air pollution are quite worrying. In the UK monitoring networks measure the levels of different air pollutants, and these measurements are provided by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the form of daily air quality indices (AQIs), together with separate health advice for at-risk groups and the general population. A recently published systematic review (D'Antoni, Smith, Auyeung, & Weinman, 2017) has found suboptimal adherence levels to health advice associated with air quality alerts, and identified several facilitators and barriers of adherence. Some of the facilitators included beliefs that air pollution can have negative health effects (i.e. perceived severity), outcome expectancies (e.g., beliefs that something can be done to reduce smog), beliefs about the health benefits of AQI adoption (i.e. response efficacy), and receiving advice from health care professionals. Barriers to adherence included: lack of understanding of the indices, being exposed to health messages that reduced both concern about air pollution and perceived susceptibility, as well as perceived lack of self-efficacy/locus of control, reliance on sensory cues and lack of time to make behavioural changes. The findings of this systematic review have informed the current research study, which aimed to improve the behavioural impact of existing air quality alerts. In particular, alternative health messages were developed based on the psychosocial factors identified in the systematic review. The purpose of the study was to test whether these theory and evidence-based alternative communication formats, compared to the official messages sent in association with the UK AQIs, maximise the behavioural impact of existing alert systems.

Methods

Design:

This was a randomised control trail using a 2-way factorial design, with target population (2 levels: general population vs. individuals with a pre-existing health condition) and message format (2 levels: usual message format vs. alternative format) as between-factors. Qualitative data were also collected to understand the reasons for actual adherence and non-adherence.

  • Theoretical framework and targeted psychosocial predictors:

The COM-B model (Michie, van Stralen, & West, 2011) was used as a theoretical framework to guide in the understanding of the facilitators and barriers to behaviour change in response to air quality alerts. The control groups received usual air quality alerts and health advice based on the UK AQI messages, and the intervention groups received alternative health messages targeting knowledge about the health impact of exposure to air pollution, perceived severity of air pollution, perceived susceptibility, perceived efficacy of protective behaviours, self-efficacy, perceived negative consequences associated with protective behaviours, reliance on sensory cue, and action planning. In addition, study participants who reported having a pre-existent respiratory condition and who were randomly allocated in the intervention group, also received specific additional messages targeting beliefs about efficacy and side effects of inhalers, and medication self-efficacy.

  • Targeting message specificity:

Specificity refers to the extent to which a message provides a detailed description of the recommended behaviour. A meta-analysis of 18 studies (O'Keefe, 1997) found that messages providing health recommendations with a more specific description seem to be significantly more persuasive than generic recommendations (r=.10, k=18, N=11,105). Participants in the control group received the usual UK AQI message format containing less specific recommendations (e.g. advice for at risk individuals in case of high air pollution: 'Adults and children with lung problems, and adults with heart problems, should reduce strenuous physical exertion, particularly outdoors'). On the other hand, the intervention group received more specific recommendations ('Adults and children with lung problems, adults with heart problems, and older people, should reduce levels and length of physical activity outdoors. Where possible, change: travel route or exercise location (e.g. use our app to find less polluted roads or parks) or time (e.g. mornings or less polluted times)').

Control and intervention groups were compared in intended and actual behaviour change outcome measures. We predicted that the alternative format would be associated with higher behaviour change, compared to the usual format.

Study Design

Study Type:
Interventional
Actual Enrollment :
225 participants
Allocation:
Randomized
Intervention Model:
Factorial Assignment
Intervention Model Description:
This was a randomised control trail using a 2-way factorial design, with target population (2 levels: general population vs. individuals with a pre-existing health condition) and message format (2 levels: usual message format vs. alternative format) as between-factors.This was a randomised control trail using a 2-way factorial design, with target population (2 levels: general population vs. individuals with a pre-existing health condition) and message format (2 levels: usual message format vs. alternative format) as between-factors.
Masking:
Single (Participant)
Masking Description:
To avoid bias participants were not told how the wording of the health advice had been changed.
Primary Purpose:
Prevention
Official Title:
Improving the Behavioural Impact of Air Quality Alerts in London
Actual Study Start Date :
Jul 23, 2017
Actual Primary Completion Date :
Sep 8, 2017
Actual Study Completion Date :
Sep 8, 2017

Arms and Interventions

Arm Intervention/Treatment
No Intervention: General public/usual health advice

Healthy participants with a self-reported existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice.
Experimental: General public/alternative health advice

Generally healthy participants were randomised to receive targeted health advice about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format.

Behavioral: Alternative health advice
These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations.
No Intervention: At risk group/usual health advice

Participants with a self-reported pre-existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice.
Experimental: At risk group/alternative health advice

Participants with a self-reported existing health conditions were randomised to receive targeted health advice (based on their health condition) about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format.

Behavioral: Alternative health advice
These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations.

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

  1. Adoption of Protective Behaviour at 4 Weeks [Baseline and at 4 weeks]

    Differences between conditions in actual adoption of protective behaviours at 4 weeks. Outcome measures were collected via self-reports: The question was: 'In the past 4 weeks, how often have you taken action to reduce exposure to air pollution, in response to hearing or reading an air quality forecast?' Measures: from 1 'Not at all' to 9 'all of the time' (answers 'N/A, I am not aware of any forecast' were excluded from analyses).

Secondary Outcome Measures

  1. Considered Making Permanent Changes [at 4 weeks]

    Differences between conditions in planning the adoption of protective behaviours at 4 weeks. Outcome measures were collected via self-reports: The question was: 'In the past 4 weeks, have you considered making permanent changes to daily travel route or exercise location/time?' possible answers were 'yes' or 'no'. 'unsure' answers were treated as system missing.

  2. Actual Behaviour Change in Response to a Real Air Quality Alert [At 3 weeks]

    Differences between conditions in self-reported actual behaviour change in response to receiving a real air quality alert. Behavioural outcomes were collected via a questionnaire asking participants to respond 'yes/no' to whether they had changed a series of behaviours in response to receiving the alert. In this case it was a 'moderate' alert

  3. Intentions to Adhere to Health Advice Associated With a Hypothetical High Air Pollution Scenario [Baseline and at 4 weeks]

    Differences between conditions in intentions to adhere to the health advice received in association with a hypothetical high air pollution alert scenario. Intentions were measured by a self-report item: participants were asked to agree with a statement about their adherence intentions on 9-point scale, where 1=strongly disagree to 9=strongly agree.

Eligibility Criteria

Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study:
18 Years and Older
Sexes Eligible for Study:
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Yes
Inclusion Criteria:
  • To be eligible to participate, participants had to be members of the general public in the adult age range (>18 years), be fluent in English, working or living in Greater London, and being new or old users of a specific air quality alert smartphone application.
Exclusion Criteria:

  • younger than 18 years

  • not working or living in Greater London

  • no longer users of the air quality alert smartphone application.

Contacts and Locations

Locations

Site City State Country Postal Code
1 King' College London London United Kingdom SE1 9NH

Sponsors and Collaborators

  • King's College London
  • National Institute for Health Research, United Kingdom
  • Public Health England

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Donatella D'Antoni, King's College London

Study Documents (Full-Text)

More Information

Publications

Responsible Party:
King's College London
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT03552198
Other Study ID Numbers:
  • LRS-16/17-4286
First Posted:
Jun 11, 2018
Last Update Posted:
Oct 22, 2021
Last Verified:
May 1, 2018
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
No
Plan to Share IPD:
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product:
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product:
No
Keywords provided by King's College London
Air quality alerts
Health behaviour change
Adherence

Study Results

Participant Flow

Recruitment Details Eligible participants had to be members of the general public in the adult age range (> 18 years), be fluent in English, working or living in Greater London (as this is the geographical area that CityAir covers), and being new or existing users of the City Air smartphone application.
Pre-assignment Detail Of the 238 initially submitted questionnaires, 13 (5.5%) were incomplete, leaving a total of 225 complete initial questionnaires.
Arm/Group Title General Public/Usual Health Advice General Public/Alternative Health Advice At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Arm/Group Description Healthy participants with a self-reported existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Generally healthy participants were randomised to receive targeted health advice about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations. Participants with a self-reported pre-existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Participants with a self-reported existing health conditions were randomised to receive targeted health advice (based on their health condition) about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations.
Period Title: Overall Study
STARTED 83 84 24 34
Final Questionnaire 4 Weeks Follow-up 34 29 7 12
COMPLETED 34 29 7 12
NOT COMPLETED 49 55 17 22

Baseline Characteristics

Arm/Group Title General Public/Usual Health Advice General Public/Alternative Health Advice At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice Total
Arm/Group Description Healthy participants with a self-reported existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Generally healthy participants were randomised to receive targeted health advice about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations. Participants with a self-reported pre-existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Participants with a self-reported existing health conditions were randomised to receive targeted health advice (based on their health condition) about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations. Total of all reporting groups
Overall Participants 34 29 7 12 82
Age, Customized (Count of Participants)
18-24 years
0
0%
2
6.9%
0
0%
0
0%
2
2.4%
25-34 years
12
35.3%
12
41.4%
1
14.3%
5
41.7%
30
36.6%
35-49 years
17
50%
11
37.9%
1
14.3%
3
25%
32
39%
50+ years
5
14.7%
4
13.8%
5
71.4%
4
33.3%
18
22%
Sex: Female, Male (Count of Participants)
Female
13
38.2%
11
37.9%
2
28.6%
5
41.7%
31
37.8%
Male
21
61.8%
18
62.1%
5
71.4%
7
58.3%
51
62.2%
Race/Ethnicity, Customized (Count of Participants)
White
31
91.2%
27
93.1%
6
85.7%
10
83.3%
74
90.2%
Other
3
8.8%
2
6.9%
1
14.3%
2
16.7%
8
9.8%
Adoption of protective behaviour at baseline (units on a scale) [Mean (Standard Deviation) ]
Mean (Standard Deviation) [units on a scale]
3.00
(0.45)
2.38
(0.45)
3.43
(1.42)
2.83
(0.90)
2.79
(0.30)

Outcome Measures

1. Primary Outcome
Title Adoption of Protective Behaviour at 4 Weeks
Description Differences between conditions in actual adoption of protective behaviours at 4 weeks. Outcome measures were collected via self-reports: The question was: 'In the past 4 weeks, how often have you taken action to reduce exposure to air pollution, in response to hearing or reading an air quality forecast?' Measures: from 1 'Not at all' to 9 'all of the time' (answers 'N/A, I am not aware of any forecast' were excluded from analyses).
Time Frame Baseline and at 4 weeks

Outcome Measure Data

Analysis Population Description
ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was performed for actual behaviour change at four weeks, adjusting for baseline data collected about one month earlier (target population and intervention/ control group were entered as fixed factors).
Arm/Group Title General Public/Usual Health Advice General Public/Alternative Health Advice At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Arm/Group Description Healthy participants with a self-reported existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Generally healthy participants were randomised to receive targeted health advice about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations. Participants with a self-reported pre-existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Participants with a self-reported existing health conditions were randomised to receive targeted health advice (based on their health condition) about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations.
Measure Participants 34 29 7 12
Mean (Standard Deviation) [units on a scale 1-9]
3.67
(0.44)
4.25
(0.48)
4.29
(0.97)
3.65
(0.74)
Statistical Analysis 1
Statistical Analysis Overview Comparison Group Selection General Public/Usual Health Advice, General Public/Alternative Health Advice, At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice, At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Comments We predicted that the groups receiving the alternative format of air quality notifications would report greater frequency of behaviour change at 4 weeks compared to the groups receiving the usual format.
Type of Statistical Test Other
Comments
Statistical Test of Hypothesis p-Value .964
Comments
Method ANCOVA
Comments ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline measures, tested for differences between intervention and control groups in preventative behaviours at 4 weeks
2. Secondary Outcome
Title Considered Making Permanent Changes
Description Differences between conditions in planning the adoption of protective behaviours at 4 weeks. Outcome measures were collected via self-reports: The question was: 'In the past 4 weeks, have you considered making permanent changes to daily travel route or exercise location/time?' possible answers were 'yes' or 'no'. 'unsure' answers were treated as system missing.
Time Frame at 4 weeks

Outcome Measure Data

Analysis Population Description
A Chi square test was performed to analyse whether there were significant differences in the proportion of respondents who had considered making permanent changes to their daily travel route, exercise location or exercise time between groups.
Arm/Group Title General Public/Usual Health Advice General Public/Alternative Health Advice At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Arm/Group Description Healthy participants with a self-reported existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Generally healthy participants were randomised to receive targeted health advice about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations. Participants with a self-reported pre-existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Participants with a self-reported existing health conditions were randomised to receive targeted health advice (based on their health condition) about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations.
Measure Participants 33 26 7 12
yes
10
29.4%
14
48.3%
3
42.9%
7
58.3%
no
23
67.6%
12
41.4%
4
57.1%
5
41.7%
Statistical Analysis 1
Statistical Analysis Overview Comparison Group Selection General Public/Usual Health Advice, General Public/Alternative Health Advice, At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice, At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Comments We predicted that more respondents in the intervention groups (i.e. receiving alternative health advice) would consider making permanent changes to their daily travel route, exercise location or exercise time compared to the control groups
Type of Statistical Test Other
Comments
Statistical Test of Hypothesis p-Value 0.043
Comments
Method Chi-squared
Comments χ2(1)=4.11, V=0.229
3. Secondary Outcome
Title Actual Behaviour Change in Response to a Real Air Quality Alert
Description Differences between conditions in self-reported actual behaviour change in response to receiving a real air quality alert. Behavioural outcomes were collected via a questionnaire asking participants to respond 'yes/no' to whether they had changed a series of behaviours in response to receiving the alert. In this case it was a 'moderate' alert
Time Frame At 3 weeks

Outcome Measure Data

Analysis Population Description
Chi square tests were performed to analyse differences in proportion of self-reported actual behaviour change between groups, in relation to a real moderate air pollution episode. 'Unsure' answers in relation to actual behaviour change were treated as system missing and excluded from analyses.
Arm/Group Title General Public/Usual Health Advice General Public/Alternative Health Advice At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Arm/Group Description Healthy participants with a self-reported existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Generally healthy participants were randomised to receive targeted health advice about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations. Participants with a self-reported pre-existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Participants with a self-reported existing health conditions were randomised to receive targeted health advice (based on their health condition) about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations.
Measure Participants 19 25 7 12
Yes
3
8.8%
2
6.9%
2
28.6%
5
41.7%
No
16
47.1%
23
79.3%
4
57.1%
7
58.3%
Yes
4
11.8%
2
6.9%
1
14.3%
4
33.3%
No
15
44.1%
23
79.3%
6
85.7%
7
58.3%
Yes
0
0%
3
10.3%
1
14.3%
2
16.7%
No
19
55.9%
22
75.9%
6
85.7%
9
75%
Yes
2
5.9%
5
17.2%
2
28.6%
1
8.3%
No
16
47.1%
19
65.5%
5
71.4%
11
91.7%
Yes
2
5.9%
6
20.7%
2
28.6%
1
8.3%
No
15
44.1%
18
62.1%
5
71.4%
10
83.3%
Statistical Analysis 1
Statistical Analysis Overview Comparison Group Selection General Public/Usual Health Advice, General Public/Alternative Health Advice, At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice, At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Comments We predicted that the alternative health advice would lead to greater actual behaviour change compared to the usual format
Type of Statistical Test Other
Comments
Statistical Test of Hypothesis p-Value >0.05
Comments
Method Fisher Exact
Comments
4. Secondary Outcome
Title Intentions to Adhere to Health Advice Associated With a Hypothetical High Air Pollution Scenario
Description Differences between conditions in intentions to adhere to the health advice received in association with a hypothetical high air pollution alert scenario. Intentions were measured by a self-report item: participants were asked to agree with a statement about their adherence intentions on 9-point scale, where 1=strongly disagree to 9=strongly agree.
Time Frame Baseline and at 4 weeks

Outcome Measure Data

Analysis Population Description
ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was performed for behavioural intentions in relation to the high air pollution hypothetical scenario at four weeks, adjusting for baseline data collected about one month earlier (target population and intervention/control group were entered as fixed factors).
Arm/Group Title General Public/Usual Health Advice General Public/Alternative Health Advice At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Arm/Group Description Healthy participants with a self-reported existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Generally healthy participants were randomised to receive targeted health advice about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations. Participants with a self-reported pre-existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Participants with a self-reported existing health conditions were randomised to receive targeted health advice (based on their health condition) about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations.
Measure Participants 34 29 7 12
Mean (Standard Error) [score on a scale]
6.69
(0.23)
6.26
(0.33)
7.58
(0.28)
6.93
(0.50)
Statistical Analysis 1
Statistical Analysis Overview Comparison Group Selection General Public/Usual Health Advice, General Public/Alternative Health Advice, At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice, At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Comments We predicted that the alternative format would lead to stronger intentions to adhere to recommendations associated with an hypothetical high air pollution episode compared to the usual format.
Type of Statistical Test Other
Comments
Statistical Test of Hypothesis p-Value >0.05
Comments
Method ANCOVA
Comments ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline intentions, tested for differences between groups in intentions in relation to an high-air-pollution scenario at 4 weeks

Adverse Events

Time Frame
Adverse Event Reporting Description All-Cause Mortality, Serious, and Other (Not Including Serious) Adverse Events were not monitored/assessed.
Arm/Group Title General Public/Usual Health Advice General Public/Alternative Health Advice At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Arm/Group Description Healthy participants with a self-reported existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Generally healthy participants were randomised to receive targeted health advice about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations. Participants with a self-reported pre-existing health condition were randomised to receive the usual UK Air Quality Indices health advice. Participants with a self-reported existing health conditions were randomised to receive targeted health advice (based on their health condition) about the adoption of protective behaviours in an alternative format. Alternative health advice: These messages targeted specific beliefs about air pollution and protective actions aimed at reducing exposure to air pollution. In addition, message specificity was targeted, which means that compared to the usual messages, the alternative messages reported more detailed health recommendations.
All Cause Mortality
General Public/Usual Health Advice General Public/Alternative Health Advice At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Affected / at Risk (%) # Events Affected / at Risk (%) # Events Affected / at Risk (%) # Events Affected / at Risk (%) # Events
Total 0/0 (NaN) 0/0 (NaN) 0/0 (NaN) 0/0 (NaN)
Serious Adverse Events
General Public/Usual Health Advice General Public/Alternative Health Advice At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Affected / at Risk (%) # Events Affected / at Risk (%) # Events Affected / at Risk (%) # Events Affected / at Risk (%) # Events
Total 0/0 (NaN) 0/0 (NaN) 0/0 (NaN) 0/0 (NaN)
Other (Not Including Serious) Adverse Events
General Public/Usual Health Advice General Public/Alternative Health Advice At Risk Group/Usual Health Advice At Risk Group/Alternative Health Advice
Affected / at Risk (%) # Events Affected / at Risk (%) # Events Affected / at Risk (%) # Events Affected / at Risk (%) # Events
Total 0/0 (NaN) 0/0 (NaN) 0/0 (NaN) 0/0 (NaN)

Limitations/Caveats

[Not Specified]

More Information

Certain Agreements

Principal Investigators are NOT employed by the organization sponsoring the study.

There is NOT an agreement between Principal Investigators and the Sponsor (or its agents) that restricts the PI's rights to discuss or publish trial results after the trial is completed.

Results Point of Contact

Name/Title Dr D D'Antoni
Organization KCL
Phone
Email donatella.d'antoni@kcl.ac.uk
Responsible Party:
King's College London
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT03552198
Other Study ID Numbers:
  • LRS-16/17-4286
First Posted:
Jun 11, 2018
Last Update Posted:
Oct 22, 2021
Last Verified:
May 1, 2018