Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32209142›Full record

SynthesisPublic health nutrition2020

A systematic review, and meta-analysis, examining the prevalence of price promotions on foods and whether they are more likely to be found on less-healthy foods.

Asha Kaur, Thomas Lewis, Veronika Lipkova, Santhushya Fernando, Mike Rayner, Richard A Harrington, Wilma Waterlander, Peter Scarborough

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Public health nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Asha KaurCentre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, OxfordOX3 7LF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0617-2287
Thomas LewisWashington Singer Laboratories, Perry Road, University of Exeter, ExeterEX4 4QG, UK.
Veronika LipkovaMedical Sciences Divisional Office, University of Oxford, Level 3, John Radcliffe Hospital, OxfordOX3 9DU, UK.
Santhushya FernandoMinistry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Ministry of Health, Colombo 10, Colombo 01000, Sri Lanka.
Mike RaynerCentre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, OxfordOX3 7LF, UK.
Richard A HarringtonCentre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, OxfordOX3 7LF, UK.
Wilma WaterlanderAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter ScarboroughCentre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, OxfordOX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation 006/PSS/CORE/2016/OXFORDBritish Heart Foundation FS/15/34/31656Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThere are concerns that price promotions encourage unhealthy dietary choices. This review aims to answer the following research questions (RQ1) what is the prevalence of price promotions on foods in high-income settings, and (RQ2) are price promotions more likely to be found on unhealthy foods?

designSystematic review of articles published in English, in peer-review journals, after 1 January 2000.

settingIncluded studies measured the prevalence of price promotions (i.e. percentage of foods carrying a price promotion out of the total number of foods available to purchase) in retail settings, in upper-mid to high-income countries.

participants'Price promotion' was defined as a consumer-facing temporary price reduction or discount available to all customers. The control group/comparator was the equivalent products without promotions. The primary outcome for this review was the prevalence of price promotions, and the secondary outcome was the difference between the proportions of price promotions on healthy and unhealthy foods.

resultsNine studies (239 344 observations) were included for the meta-analysis for RQ1, the prevalence of price promotions ranged from 6 % (95 % CI 2 %, 15 %) for energy-dense nutrient-poor foods to 15 % (95 % CI 9 %, 25 %) for cereals, grains, breads and other starchy carbohydrates. However, the I-squared statistic was 99 % suggesting a very high level of heterogeneity. Four studies were included for the analysis of RQ2, of which two supported the hypothesis that price promotions were more likely to be found on unhealthy foods.

conclusionsThe prevalence of price promotions is very context specific, and any proposed regulations should be supported by studies conducted within the proposed setting(s).

Indexed as

CommerceConsumer BehaviorCosts and Cost AnalysisDietDiet, HealthyFoodFood SupplyHumansMarketingNutritive ValuePrevalenceDietFoodMarketingNutritionPrice promotions

Identifiers

PMID32209142
PMCPMC7196736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.