Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34264943›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2021

Estimating the effect of moving meat-free products to the meat aisle on sales of meat and meat-free products: A non-randomised controlled intervention study in a large UK supermarket chain.

Carmen Piernas, Brian Cook, Richard Stevens, Cristina Stewart, Jennifer Hollowell, Peter Scarborough, Susan A Jebb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Changing behaviour for net zero 2050.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Carmen PiernasNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7536-922X
Brian CookNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3902-7449
Richard StevensNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9258-4060
Cristina StewartNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3060-5874
Jennifer HollowellNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4041-5732
Peter ScarboroughNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2378-2944
Susan A JebbNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of HealthWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 05212/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReducing meat consumption could bring health and environmental benefits, but there is little research to date on effective interventions to achieve this. A non-randomised controlled intervention study was used to evaluate whether prominent positioning of meat-free products in the meat aisle was associated with a change in weekly mean sales of meat and meat-free products. METHODS AND

findingsWeekly sales data were obtained from 108 stores: 20 intervention stores that moved a selection of 26 meat-free products into a newly created meat-free bay within the meat aisle and 88 matched control stores. The primary outcome analysis used a hierarchical negative binomial model to compare changes in weekly sales (units) of meat products sold in intervention versus control stores during the main intervention period (Phase I: February 2019 to April 2019). Interrupted time series analysis was also used to evaluate the effects of the Phase I intervention. Moreover, 8 of the 20 stores enhanced the intervention from August 2019 onwards (Phase II intervention) by adding a second bay of meat-free products into the meat aisle, which was evaluated following the same analytical methods. During the Phase I intervention, sales of meat products (units/store/week) decreased in intervention (approximately -6%) and control stores (-5%) without significant differences (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01 [95% CI 0.95-1.07]. Sales of meat-free products increased significantly more in the intervention (+31%) compared to the control stores (+6%; IRR 1.43 [95% CI 1.30-1.57]), mostly due to increased sales of meat-free burgers, mince, and sausages. Consistent results were observed in interrupted time series analyses where the effect of the Phase II intervention was significant in intervention versus control stores.

conclusionsProminent positioning of meat-free products into the meat aisle in a supermarket was not effective in reducing sales of meat products, but successfully increased sales of meat-free alternatives in the longer term. A preregistered protocol (https://osf.io/qmz3a/) was completed and fully available before data analysis.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorFood MarketsFood PreferencesMeat ProductsHealth PromotionHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34264943
PMCPMC8321099

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.