Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35176022›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2022

Changes in household food and drink purchases following restrictions on the advertisement of high fat, salt, and sugar products across the Transport for London network: A controlled interrupted time series analysis.

Amy Yau, Nicolas Berger, Cherry Law, Laura Cornelsen, Robert Greener, Jean Adams, Emma J Boyland, Thomas Burgoine, Frank de Vocht, Matt Egan and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of food, beverage, and alcohol brand marketing on consumptive behaviors and health in children and adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Are wePublic health nutrition · 2026
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Unhealthy Food and Beverage Marketing on Public Transport Infrastructure in Western Melbourne.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Amy YauPopulation Health Innovation Lab, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8889-523X
Nicolas BergerPopulation Health Innovation Lab, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4213-6040
Cherry LawPopulation Health Innovation Lab, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0686-1998
Laura CornelsenPopulation Health Innovation Lab, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3769-8740
Robert GreenerPopulation Health Innovation Lab, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2118-2360
Jean AdamsMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5733-7830
Emma J BoylandDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Thomas BurgoineMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6936-3801
Frank de VochtPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3631-627X
Matt EganDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4040-200X
Vanessa ErPopulation Health Innovation Lab, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0649-1846
Amelia A LakeSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4657-8938
Karen LockDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Oliver MyttonMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3218-9912
Mark PetticrewDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Claire ThompsonCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0864-9811
Martin WhiteMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1861-6757
Steven CumminsPopulation Health Innovation Lab, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3957-4357
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBUnited Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UKDepartment of Health ES/G007462/1Department of Health PD-SPH-2015Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/7Medical Research Council MC/UU/12015/6Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1Medical Research Council MR/N013638/1Medical Research Council MR/P021999/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 087636/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRestricting the advertisement of products with high fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) content has been recommended as a policy tool to improve diet and tackle obesity, but the impact on HFSS purchasing is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of HFSS advertising restrictions, implemented across the London (UK) transport network in February 2019, on HFSS purchases. METHODS AND

findingsOver 5 million take-home food and drink purchases were recorded by 1,970 households (London [intervention], n = 977; North of England [control], n = 993) randomly selected from the Kantar Fast Moving Consumer Goods panel. The intervention and control samples were similar in household characteristics but had small differences in main food shopper sex, socioeconomic position, and body mass index. Using a controlled interrupted time series design, we estimated average weekly household purchases of energy and nutrients from HFSS products in the post-intervention period (44 weeks) compared to a counterfactual constructed from the control and pre-intervention (36 weeks) series. Energy purchased from HFSS products was 6.7% (1,001.0 kcal, 95% CI 456.0 to 1,546.0) lower among intervention households compared to the counterfactual. Relative reductions in purchases of fat (57.9 g, 95% CI 22.1 to 93.7), saturated fat (26.4 g, 95% CI 12.4 to 40.4), and sugar (80.7 g, 95% CI 41.4 to 120.1) from HFSS products were also observed. Energy from chocolate and confectionery purchases was 19.4% (317.9 kcal, 95% CI 200.0 to 435.8) lower among intervention households than for the counterfactual, with corresponding relative reductions in fat (13.1 g, 95% CI 7.5 to 18.8), saturated fat (8.7 g, 95% CI 5.7 to 11.7), sugar (41.4 g, 95% CI 27.4 to 55.4), and salt (0.2 g, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) purchased from chocolate and confectionery. Relative reductions are in the context of secular increases in HFSS purchases in both the intervention and control areas, so the policy was associated with attenuated growth of HFSS purchases rather than absolute reduction in HFSS purchases. Study limitations include the lack of out-of-home purchases in our analyses and not being able to assess the sustainability of observed changes beyond 44 weeks.

conclusionsThis study finds an association between the implementation of restrictions on outdoor HFSS advertising and relative reductions in energy, sugar, and fat purchased from HFSS products. These findings provide support for policies that restrict HFSS advertising as a tool to reduce purchases of HFSS products.

Indexed as

AdultAdvertisingAgedBeveragesConsumer BehaviorDietary FatsDietary SugarsDiet, High-FatEconomicsFemaleHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisLondonMaleMiddle AgedSodium Chloride, DietaryDietary FatsDietary SugarsSodium Chloride, DietarySugars

Identifiers

PMID35176022
PMCPMC8853584
OpenAlexW4220681454

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.