Job strain exposures vs. stress-related workers’ compensation claims in Victoria, Australia: developing a public health response to job stress

We present a comparative analysis of patterns of exposure to job stressors and stress-related workers’ compensation (WC) claims to provide an evaluation of the adequacy of claims-driven policy and practice. We assessed job strain prevalence in a 2003 population-based survey of Victorian [Australia] workers and compared these results with stress-related WC statistics for the same year. Job strain prevalence was higher among females than males, and elevated among lower vs. higher occupational skill levels. In comparison, claims were higher among females than males, but primarily among higher skill-level workers. There was some congruence between exposure and WC claims patterns. Highly exposed groups in lower socio-economic positions were underrepresented in claims statistics, suggesting that the WC insurance perspective substantially underestimates the job stress problems for these groups. Thus to provide a sufficient evidence base for equitable policy and practice responses to this growing public health problem, exposure or health outcome data are needed as an essential complement to claims statistics.

Are food brands that carry light claims different?

Little is known about the market performance of brands that carry light claims (for example low fat, low sugar) in comparison to their regular counterparts. In order to fill this gap, we explore whether light brands perform similarly to regular brands in terms of (a) brand performance measures (BPMs), such as market share (MS) and penetration, (b) loyalty levels, and (c) customer sharing. We analyse three product categories (cola, flavoured carbonated beverages and margarine) using UK household panel data provided by Kantar. The results show that when considering standard BPMs (that is MS, penetration and purchase frequency), regular brands receive higher BPMs than light brands. However, when considering repeat purchase loyalty, light brands achieve greater levels of loyalty than their regular counterparts. Finally, light brands share their buyers more with each other than expected, suggesting the existence of market partitions, although these are not isolated as buyers of these brands still buy regular brands. © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

The combined effect of front-of-pack nutrition labels and health claims on consumers' evaluation of food products

The majority of studies examining the effect of nutrition information on food packets (such as the nutrition information panel (NIP), front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) and health claims) have examined each in isolation, even though they often occur together. This study investigated the relationship between FoPLs and health claims since (i) they both appear on the front of packs and typically receive more attention from consumers than the NIP, (ii) they can convey contradictory messages (i.e., health claims provide information on nutrients that are beneficial to health while FoPLs provide information on nutrients associated with increased health risks) and (iii) there is currently scant research on how consumers trade off between these two sources of information. Ten focus groups (n = 85) explored adults' and children's reactions when presented with both a FoPL (the Daily Intake Guide, Multiple Traffic Lights, or the Health Star Rating) and a health claim (nutrient content, general-level-, or high-level). A particular focus was participants' processing of discrepant information. Participants reported that health claims were more likely to be considered during product evaluations if they were perceived to be trustworthy, relevant and informative. Trust and ease of interpretation were most important for FoPLs, which were more likely than health claims to meet criteria and be considered during product evaluation (especially the Health Star Rating and Multiple Traffic Lights). Results indicate that consumers generally find FoPLs more useful than health claims.