ReviewNutrition reviews2017
Best practices for using natural experiments to evaluate retail food and beverage policies and interventions.
Review in Nutrition reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Food marketing, eating and health outcomes in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review of the effect of policies to restrict the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to which children are exposed.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Health-Promoting Food Retail-Based Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- The introduction of new food retail opportunities in lower-income communities and the impact on fruit and vegetable intake: a systematic review.Translational behavioral medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mobile produce market designed to address diet and food insecurity in underserved communities.BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Mobile Produce Market designed to Address Diet and Food Insecurity in Underserved Communities.Research square · 2025Article
- Association of the retail food environment, BMI, dietary patterns, and socioeconomic position in urban areas of Mexico.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- The Impact of a Grocery Store Closure in One Rural Highly Obese Appalachian Community on Shopping Behavior and Dietary Intake.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Removing seasonal confectionery from prominent store locations and purchasing behaviour within a major UK supermarket: Evaluation of a nonrandomised controlled intervention study.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- A qualitative analysis of SNAP and minimum wage policies as experienced by workers with lower incomes.Journal of hunger & environmental nutrition · 2022Article
- Recruitment of Low-wage Workers for a Time-Sensitive Natural Experiment to Evaluate a Minimum Wage Policy: Challenges and Lessons Learned.Field methods · 2021Article
- Gaps and priorities in assessment of food environments for children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries.Nature food · 2021Review
- The retail food environment and its association with body mass index in Mexico.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2021Article
- Small Improvements in an Urban Food Environment Resulted in No Changes in Diet Among Residents.Journal of community health · 2021Article
- Dietary Policies and Programs: Moving Beyond Efficacy and Into "Real-World" Settings.Health equity · 2021Review
- Effects of a food hub initiative in a disadvantaged community: A quasi-experimental evaluation.Health & place · 2020Article
- Governmental policies to reduce unhealthy food marketing to children.Nutrition reviews · 2019Article
- [Effects of front-of-package nutritional labeling of food and beverages: synopsis of systematic reviewsEfeitos da rotulagem nutricional frontal de alimentos e bebidas: sumário de estudos de revisão sistemática].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2019Article
- PROTOCOL: Impact of the food environment on diet-related health outcomes in school-age children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Policy and programmatic change in the food retail setting, including excise taxes on beverages with added-caloric sweeteners, new supermarkets in food deserts, and voluntary corporate pledges, often require the use of natural experimental evaluation for impact evaluation when randomized controlled trials are not possible. Although natural experimental studies in the food retail setting provide important opportunities to test how nonrandomized interventions affect behavioral and health outcomes, researchers face several key challenges to maintaining strong internal and external validity when conducting these studies. Broadly, these challenges include 1) study design and analysis; 2) selection of participants, selection of measures, and obtainment of data; and 3) real-world considerations. This article addresses these challenges and different approaches to meeting them. Case studies are used to illustrate these approaches and to highlight advantages and disadvantages of each approach. If the trade-offs required to address these challenges are carefully considered, thoughtful natural experimental evaluations can minimize bias and provide critical information about the impacts of food retail interventions to a variety of stakeholders, including the affected population, policymakers, and food retailers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.