Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34491999›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2021

Altering product placement to create a healthier layout in supermarkets: Outcomes on store sales, customer purchasing, and diet in a prospective matched controlled cluster study.

Christina Vogel, Sarah Crozier, Daniel Penn-Newman, Kylie Ball, Graham Moon, Joanne Lord, Cyrus Cooper, Janis Baird

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03518151 (Women's Responses to Adjusted Product Placement and Its Effects on Diet - 1), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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.

NCT03518151 nacompletednot on this map

Women's Responses to Adjusted Product Placement and Its Effects on Diet - 1 (WRAPPED1)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustRan2016 to 2017Enrolled150ConditionsDiet ModificationArmsProduct placement intervention, Sham comparator
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christina VogelMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3897-3786
Sarah CrozierMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9524-1127
Daniel Penn-NewmanMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Kylie BallInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Graham MoonSchool of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Joanne LordSouthampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1086-1624
Cyrus CooperMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3510-0709
Janis BairdMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4039-4361
Southampton General Hospital · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBDeakin University · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council G0400491Medical Research Council MC_PC_21000Medical Research Council MC_PC_21001Medical Research Council MC_PC_21003Medical Research Council MC_U147585819Medical Research Council MC_U147585824Medical Research Council MC_U147585827Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1014Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/4Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious product placement trials in supermarkets are limited in scope and outcome data collected. This study assessed the effects on store-level sales, household-level purchasing, and dietary behaviours of a healthier supermarket layout. METHODS AND

findingsThis is a prospective matched controlled cluster trial with 2 intervention components: (i) new fresh fruit and vegetable sections near store entrances (replacing smaller displays at the back) and frozen vegetables repositioned to the entrance aisle, plus (ii) the removal of confectionery from checkouts and aisle ends opposite. In this pilot study, the intervention was implemented for 6 months in 3 discount supermarkets in England. Three control stores were matched on store sales and customer profiles and neighbourhood deprivation. Women customers aged 18 to 45 years, with loyalty cards, were assigned to the intervention (n = 62) or control group (n = 88) of their primary store. The trial registration number is NCT03518151. Interrupted time series analysis showed that increases in store-level sales of fruits and vegetables were greater in intervention stores than predicted at 3 (1.71 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI 0.45, 2.96), P = 0.01) and 6 months follow-up (2.42 SDs (0.22, 4.62), P = 0.03), equivalent to approximately 6,170 and approximately 9,820 extra portions per store, per week, respectively. The proportion of purchasing fruits and vegetables per week rose among intervention participants at 3 and 6 months compared to control participants (0.2% versus -3.0%, P = 0.22; 1.7% versus -3.5%, P = 0.05, respectively). Store sales of confectionery were lower in intervention stores than predicted at 3 (-1.05 SDs (-1.98, -0.12), P = 0.03) and 6 months (-1.37 SDs (-2.95, 0.22), P = 0.09), equivalent to approximately 1,359 and approximately 1,575 fewer portions per store, per week, respectively; no differences were observed for confectionery purchasing. Changes in dietary variables were predominantly in the expected direction for health benefit. Intervention implementation was not within control of the research team, and stores could not be randomised. It is a pilot study, and, therefore, not powered to detect an effect.

conclusionsHealthier supermarket layouts can improve the nutrition profile of store sales and likely improve household purchasing and dietary quality. Placing fruits and vegetables near store entrances should be considered alongside policies to limit prominent placement of unhealthy foods.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03518151 (pre-results).

Indexed as

CommerceConsumer BehaviorDiet, HealthyFoodFood MarketsNutritive ValueAdolescentAdultCandyChoice BehaviorEnglandFemaleFood PreferencesFrozen FoodsFruitHumans

Identifiers

PMID34491999
PMCPMC8423266
OpenAlexW3198131751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.