{"doc_desc":{"title":"IDRC FEP- ACTION (FoPL Qualitative Study)","idno":"DDI-KEN-APHRC-FEP1-2023-V10","producers":[{"name":"African Population Health Research Center","abbreviation":"APHRC","affiliation":"African Population and Health Research Center","role":"Documentation of the FoPL Qualitative data"}],"prod_date":"2024-05-15","version_statement":{"version":"Version 1.0"}},"study_desc":{"title_statement":{"idno":"DDI-KEN-APHRC-FEP1-2023-V10","title":"Evidence to catalyse food environment policy actions towards healthy diets and prevention of the double burden of malnutrition in Kenya (FEP- ACTION)","sub_title":"Consumer perceptions on proposed front-of-pack labels for foods and drinks in Kenya; A qualitative study","alt_title":"FoPL 2023"},"authoring_entity":[{"name":"Dr. Gershim Asiki","affiliation":"African Population and Health Research Center"}],"oth_id":[{"name":"Leila Akinyi","affiliation":"Ministry of Health","email":"","role":"Ministry Lead contact person"},{"name":"Data collectors","affiliation":"African Population and Health Research Center","email":"","role":"Data collection"}],"production_statement":{"producers":[{"name":"Dr. Shukri Mohamed","affiliation":"APHRC","role":"Project manager"},{"name":"Veronicah Ojiambo","affiliation":"APHRC","role":"Research Officer"},{"name":"Jane Mangwana","affiliation":"APHRC","role":"Advocacy manager"},{"name":"Hellen Gitau","affiliation":"APHRC","role":"System dynamics modelling"},{"name":"Milka Wanjohi","affiliation":"APHRC","role":"Research officer"},{"name":"Caliph Kirui","affiliation":"APHRC","role":"Data Document Specialist"},{"name":"Boniface Ingumba","affiliation":"APHRC","role":"Data Document Reviewer"}],"copyright":"Copyright \u00a9 APHRC, 2013","funding_agencies":[{"name":"International Development Research Center","abbreviation":"IDRC","role":"Research"}],"grant_no":"109865-001"},"series_statement":{"series_name":"Other Household Survey [hh\/oth]"},"version_statement":{"version_date":"2023-12-15"},"study_info":{"keywords":[{"keyword":"Kenya","vocab":"","uri":""},{"keyword":"Front-of-pack labels","vocab":"","uri":""},{"keyword":"Non-communicable diseases","vocab":"","uri":""},{"keyword":"Consumers","vocab":"","uri":""},{"keyword":"Perceptions","vocab":"","uri":""}],"abstract":"Background: \nKenya lacks comprehensive policies for regulating the food environment, thus there is a high level of unhealthy food consumption. The goal of the Food Environment Policy-Action project is to build evidence and mobilize multi-stakeholder actions towards the development of a double-duty bundle of four food environment policies that prevent the consumption of unhealthy diets and promote the consumption of nutrient rich and energy-dense healthy foods. \nObjective: This study aimed to explore consumers' perceptions and understanding of proposed Front of Pack Labelling symbols to be placed on foods and non-alcoholic beverages in Kenya and their insights into features that could influence the effectiveness of the symbols.\nStudy methods: We adopted a qualitative design using focus group discussions (FGDs) to collect data. Data collection was carried out in four counties in Kenya: Nairobi, Kisumu, Mombasa and Garissa. The four Counties were selected to represent different socio-economic contexts, varying access to supermarkets, and diverse consumer behaviours related to packaged food consumption. Data collection took place in October 2023. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse emerging themes for the qualitative data using Nvivo version 14.0.  Three FoPLs were assessed: Red and Green (RG), Red and Green with icons (RGI) and the Black Warning label (WL) were tested with Kenyan consumers. Results showed that Kenyan consumers have varied perceptions about the proposed FoPL symbols. Majority of the participants found the black WL to be most visible and memorable citing its good blend of black and white colours. Although the RG and RGI symbols were also found to be eye-catching due to their bright colours, it also emerged that the colours caused confusion to the participants on what they mean. Most of the participants understood the WL compared to the RG and RGI because they found the additional text more educative. Generally, the WL was preferred as the symbol most likely to influence consumer purchase behaviours and hence unhealthy food consumption. All the three FoPLs tested were found to be culturally appropriate.\nThis project was funded through the Catalyzing Change for Health and Sustainable Food Systems (CCHeFS) Initiative, a co-funding partnership between IDRC and the Rockefeller Foundation.","coll_dates":[{"start":"2023-10-16","end":"2023-10-18","cycle":""}],"nation":[{"name":"Kenya","abbreviation":"KEN"}],"geog_coverage":"Regional coverage (Four counties representing four ethno-linguistic regions in Kenya). These were Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu and Garissa Counties. From each County, two sub-counties were selected, Fafi and Garissa Township in Garissa, Embakasi and Langata in Nairobi, Nyando and Kisumu Central in Kisumu and Mvita and Kisauni in Mombasa.","analysis_unit":"Focus groups. This study used 12 focus group discussions composed of between 10 and 15 participants. These participants were consumers aged between 18 and 60 who regularly bought packaged food products. The Focus groups were composed of both males and females, peopple from similar socio-economic backgrounds and within the same region. The discussions were conducted by trained moderators with the help of a FGD guide and the discussion was recorded.","universe":"The survey covered populations aged 18-60 from diverse socio-demographic and socio-economic backgrounds.","notes":"The study explored participant's perceptions on proposed front-of-pack symbol's visibility and memorability, their understanding of the FOPLs and perceived effect on purchasing habits and cultural appropriateness. It also sought to asses the FoPL format that was most memorable and stood out.","study_scope":"The study explored participant's perceptions on proposed front-of-pack symbol's visibility and memorability, their understanding of the FOPLs and perceived effect on purchasing habits and cultural appropriateness. It also sought to asses the FoPL format that was most memorable and stood out."},"method":{"data_collection":{"sampling_procedure":"Selection of the four Counties was based on stratification of the country's main ethno-linguistic regions i.e (Western Kenya, Rift Valley or Central, Coastal and Eastern). Recruitment of the study participants was done prior to the discussions in each of the study sites. Trained research assistants approached shoppers randomly as they exited selected supermarkets in low (n=6) and high (n=6) SES neighbourhoods, as per the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics.  Potential study participants were screened for eligibility using a 12-point screener. People who indicated that they often bought branded packaged foods or drinks and were the main decision makers for food purchases were included in the study. Individuals who worked as healthcare professionals, in the tobacco, food, advertising industries, and market research companies were excluded from the study.","coll_mode":"Focus Group [foc]","research_instrument":"The study used a comprehensive FGD guide to collect data from the participants. The FGD guide had two sections. The questions in the first section explored the label's visibility and memorability to the participants, their understanding of the FOPLs and perceived effect on purchasing habits and cultural appropriateness. In the second section, participants were asked to select the FoPL format that was most memorable and stood out. The guide was adapted from similar studies conducted in other countries. To accommodate participants' language preferences, the researchers translated the focus group discussion guide to Swahili and Somali and the moderators, then facilitated the discussions in the language preferred by the participants.","act_min":"The discussions were moderated by trained research assistants. Two research assistants (1 moderator and an assistant) together with a member of the project team from APHRC conducted the three FGDs in each County. All the FGDs were conducted in pre-identified public facilities such as schools, church buildings or mosques that were free of noise and interruptions and lasted between one and half to two hours. To ensure credibility, the research team had sit-ins during all the focus group discussions and held debriefing sessions with the moderators and research assistants after data collection.","cleaning_operations":"The data collected were transcribed verbatim, translated into English where applicable and then coded and analysed using Nvivo version 14.0. Transcriptions were analysed using a three-stage process. First, the transcripts were read repeatedly to determine appropriate code terms that reflected the research question. Having identified the parent themes, they then re-read the transcripts again to identify emerging child codes related to each parent code. The two coders then compared their codes and agreed on the codes that best represented participants' perceptions. Similar codes were then grouped into broader categories and connections between categories were examined. Categories that emerged were considered important based on length, depth of discussion, order of emergence as well as tendency to appear in more than one focus group. The coders then harmonized the codebook which they used to code all the 12 transcripts from the study. A qualitative data analysis expert reviewed the data before and during analysis. Thematic analysis was used to identify recurrent themes and patterns within the qualitative data. Five major themes were deductively developed from the data; 1) visibility and memorability, 2) comprehensibility, 3) potential effectiveness, 4) cultural appropriateness and 5) comparative rating of the labels. A report was then drafted from the data and reviewed to answer the research questions. The results of the preliminary analysis were reviewed and discussed with the research team to refine themes before writing up the final conclusions."},"analysis_info":{"response_rate":"NA"}},"data_access":{"dataset_use":{"contact":[{"name":"African Population and Health Research Center","affiliation":"None","email":"datarequests@aphrc.org\/info@aphrc.org","uri":"aphrc.org"}],"cit_req":"Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:\n- the Identification of the Primary Investigator\n- the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)\n- the survey reference number\n- the source and date of download","conditions":"APHRC GUIDELINES ON DATA ACCESS AND SHARING\nAPHRC premises its data access and sharing practices on the principle that data is a public good\nand should be made available to all authorized users in a timely manner and in a user-friendly\nformat. Equally, any individual or organization using or seeking to access APHRC data will be\nrequired to abide by strict conditions as set out below.\nThis component of the research policy outlines the conditions under which APHRC data should\nbe used, the responsibilities users must commit to, and procedures for accessing APHRC data.\nPLs are responsible for approving requests to use APHRC data generated by projects under their\nPrograms. For external data request, final approval should be sought from the DR office. SSU is\nresponsible for processing all external data requests at the Center upon approval. To promote\nsynergy and cross program collaboration, data sharing is encouraged with approval from\nrespective program leaders.\nData users are expected to respect the confidentiality and privacy of individuals whose records\nthey access; to observe any restrictions that apply to sensitive data; and to abide by applicable\nlaws, policies, procedures and guidelines with respect to access, use, sharing or disclosure of\ninformation. The unauthorized storage, disclosure or distribution of APHRC data in any medium\nor use of any such data for one's own personal gain is strictly prohibited and considered a gross\nmisconduct.\nGuidelines for Data Access for External Users\nAuthorization for external users (non-APHRC staff) to use APHRC data will be granted by the\nDR, in consultation with the concerned Principal Investigator and Program Leader. APHRC data\nare made available to external users through the APHRC Microdata Portal. While decisions to\ngrant authorization will be made on a case by case basis, the following general guidelines will\napply in considering such applications:\nData Access to Collaborative Partners\nIn order to expand the scope and impact of its research, APHRC encourages the formation of\ncollaborative partnerships with other scholars or institutions. Modalities for data sharing and\npublication among members of a partnership should be established in a memorandum of\nunderstanding (MoU) before submission of research applications to donors or before\nimplementation of research projects to avoid misunderstandings later. The following guidelines\nshould govern the formation of research MoUs regarding data access and related issues.\n1. Agreement on access to data will apply only to the data collected through the joint project. If\nthere is need to extend access to other related data collected by the Center, an agreement on this\nshould be captured in the same or a separate MoU.\n2. Access to data will be limited to partners that are mentioned in the proposal. External partners\nshould not share\/use the data with non-authorized persons. Unless specifically negotiated and\nauthorized, external partners may not use APHRC data without involvement of APHRC staff as\nco-authors on scientific and other publications written using the data.\n3. All partners will fill out the online Data Request Form and commit to abide by the guidelines for\ndata use specified on the form. External users \u201cco-own\u201d data generated by the joint projects and\nthe primary purpose for filling the form is to keep track of who is using which data and for which\npurpose.\n4. Access to APHRC data for external collaborators will remain valid for two years after the end of\nthe project to allow further analysis of data for scientific publication. This period may be\nextended if there is clearly defined outstanding work.\nData Access to Other External Users\n1. The Center may grant permission for use of APHRC data to individuals or institutions with\nwhom it may not have an MoU or a collaborative arrangement. These may include government\ndepartments, UN Agencies, or other strategic partners. In general, the Center will generate tables\nand indicators requested by these institutions and may charge them for data abstraction costs if\nnecessary. In cases where the partners request for raw data, they will be required to fill a formal\ndata request form and the DR will consider the request on a case-by-case basis.\n2. APHRC data (particularly cross-sectional data)1\n may be released to the public domain two years\nafter the release of analytical data sets. The 24 month embargo is meant to enable investigators\nand other staff working on the project to finalize defined papers addressing core study objectives\nand allow other interested APHRC staff to use the data.\n3. All external users of data that have been released to the public domain should apply for access to\nthe data using the data request form and abide by the guidelines and all restrictions outlined on\nthe form. No requirement for involvement of APHRC staff shall be placed on the use of such\ndata. However, all ensuing publications must acknowledge APHRC as the source of the data, and\ncopies of the publication must be sent to the PEC division\u2019s director at APHRC.\nData Access by Graduate Students\nAs part of its capacity building program, the Center encourages graduate students to use its data\n(particularly data that has been made publicly available) for writing their theses and dissertations.\nStudents seeking to use APHRC data that are not yet in the public domain may be given permission\nto use such data if either of the following is fulfilled:\n1. They are supervised by collaborative partners and the data access to the students is agreed\nupon in the MOU guiding the partnership\n2. The student is a former employee of APHRC\n1 As member of the INDEPTH network, APHRC adheres to the network\u2019s data access and\nsharing policy for sharing longitudinal data with other users\n(http:\/\/www.indepth-network.org\/index.php?\noption=com_content&task=view&id=1403&Itemid=3).\nThe Center may request\/demand that one of its staff members be appointed to serve on the student\u2019s\ndissertation committee in instances in which the student requires access to non-publicly available\nAPHRC data sets.\nIf a student fulfills either of the two conditions above, APHRC expects him\/her to carry out his\/her\npreliminary and other data analyses at the Center. During this time, the student will function as a\nResearch Intern and will be expected to contribute to other aspects of research at the Center,\nincluding data processing, analysis or management of fieldwork.\nStudents who have authorized access to APHRC data are bound by the guidelines and restrictions\nspecified in the data access form. For instance, the student shall not use the data for any other\npurpose other than the dissertation (unless specifically authorized to do so) and shall not share the\ndata with any other party, including their professors (without written permission from APHRC).\nStudents who intend to publish their work after completing their dissertation should seek special\npermission from APHRC.\nAPHRC may provide a dataset for training purposes to a graduate training program or for technical\ntraining workshops. Use of such data beyond the class work will be guided and governed by an MoU\nto be signed between APHRC and the training institution.","disclaimer":"The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses."}}}}