Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33712022›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2021

The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.

Miranda R Blake, Gary Sacks, Christina Zorbas, Josephine Marshall, Liliana Orellana, Amy K Brown, Marj Moodie, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Jaithri Ananthapavan, Fabrice Etilé and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The Determinants of Long-Term Sustainment of Healthy Food Retail Environment Changes: A Systematic Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Sustaining Health Promotion in Australian Supermarkets: Qualitative Perspectives From the Reach for the Stars Programme.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

11 authors.

Miranda R BlakeDeakin University, Geelong, Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Locked Bag 20000, Victoria, 3220, Geelong, Australia. miranda.blake@deakin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0649-2320
Gary SacksDeakin University, Geelong, Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Locked Bag 20000, Victoria, 3220, Geelong, Australia.
Christina ZorbasDeakin University, Geelong, Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Locked Bag 20000, Victoria, 3220, Geelong, Australia.
Josephine MarshallDeakin University, Geelong, Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Locked Bag 20000, Victoria, 3220, Geelong, Australia.
Liliana OrellanaBiostatistics Unit, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, Victoria, 3220, Australia.
Amy K BrownCity of Greater Bendigo, PO Box 733, Bendigo, Victoria, 3552, Australia.
Marj MoodieDeakin University, Geelong, Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Locked Bag 20000, Victoria, 3220, Geelong, Australia.
Cliona Ni MhurchuNational Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Jaithri AnanthapavanDeakin University, Geelong, Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Locked Bag 20000, Victoria, 3220, Geelong, Australia.
Fabrice EtiléParis School of Economics and INRA, 48, Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France.
Adrian J CameronDeakin University, Geelong, Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Locked Bag 20000, Victoria, 3220, Geelong, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuccessful implementation and long-term maintenance of healthy supermarkets initiatives are crucial to achieving potential population health benefits. Understanding barriers and enablers of implementation of real-world trials will enhance wide-scale implementation. This process evaluation of a healthy supermarket intervention sought to describe (i) customer, retailer and stakeholder perspectives on the intervention; (ii) intervention implementation; and (iii) implementation barriers and enablers.

methodsEat Well @ IGA was a 12-month randomised controlled trial conducted in 11 Independent Grocers of Australia (IGA) chain supermarkets in regional Victoria, Australia (5 intervention and 6 wait-listed control stores). Intervention components included trolley and basket signage, local area and in-store promotion, and shelf tags highlighting the healthiest packaged foods. A sequential mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken. Customer exit surveys investigated demographics, and intervention recall and perceptions. Logistic mixed-models estimated associations between customer responses and demographics, with store as random effect. Supermarket staff surveys investigated staff demographics, interactions with customers, and intervention component feedback. Semi-structured stakeholder interviews with local government, retail and academic partners explored intervention perceptions, and factors which enabled or inhibited implementation, maintenance and scalability. Interviews were inductively coded to identify key themes.

resultsOf 500 customers surveyed, 33%[95%CI:23,44] recalled the Eat Well @ IGA brand and 97%[95%CI:93,99] agreed that IGA should continue its efforts to encourage healthy eating. The 82 staff surveyed demonstrated very favourable intervention perceptions. Themes from 19 interviews included that business models favour sales of unhealthy foods, and that stakeholder collaboration was crucial to intervention design and implementation. Staff surveys and interviews highlighted the need to minimise staff time for project maintenance and to regularly refresh intervention materials to increase and maintain salience among customers.

conclusionsThis process evaluation found that interventions to promote healthy diets in supermarkets can be perceived as beneficial by retailers, customers, and government partners provided that barriers including staff time and intervention salience are addressed. Collaborative partnerships in intervention design and implementation, including retailers, governments, and academics, show potential for encouraging long-term sustainability of interventions.

trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN37395231 Registered 4 May 2017.

Indexed as

Food MarketsCommerceDiet, HealthyFoodFood PreferencesFood SupplyHealth PromotionHumansMarketingSurveys and QuestionnairesVictoriaAustraliaConsumerInterventionPerceptionsProcess evaluationShelf tagSignageSupermarket

Identifiers

PMID33712022
PMCPMC7953771

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.