Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35265982›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of public health2022

Strength of EU-level food environment policies and priority recommendations to create healthy food environments.

Sanne K Djojosoeparto, Carlijn B M Kamphuis, Stefanie Vandevijvere, Celine Murrin, Isobel Stanley, Piotr Romaniuk, Janas M Harrington, Maartje P Poelman, PEN Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of public health, 2022. 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 Effectiveness of Partnerships With Commercial Actors to Improve Food Environments: A Systematic Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

9 authors.

Sanne K DjojosoepartoDepartment of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Carlijn B M KamphuisDepartment of Interdisciplinary Social Science, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Stefanie VandevijvereSciensano, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Service of Lifestyle and Chronic Diseases, Brussels, Belgium.
Celine MurrinSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Isobel StanleySchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-2962-299X
Piotr RomaniukDepartment of Health Policy, School of Health Sciences in Bytom, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.
Janas M HarringtonSchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-6238-7031
Maartje P PoelmanChair group Consumption and Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
PEN Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFood environments impact on diets, obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Government policies are essential to create healthy food environments. This study aimed to assess the strength of European Union (EU)-level policies, and identify and prioritize actions for the EU to create healthy food environments.

methodsThe Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was applied. The Food-EPI included 26 policy and 24 infrastructure support indicators. Independent experts (n = 31) rated the strength of EU-level policies and infrastructure support for each of these indicators (on a 5-point scale, from very weak to very strong) and identified and prioritized actions to improve food environments.

resultsFor 65% of the 26 policy indicators, EU-level policies were rated as weak and for 23% as very weak. For 63% of the 24 infrastructure support indicators, EU-level policies were rated as moderate and for 33% as weak. The experts recommended 18 policy and 19 infrastructure support actions to the EU. The Top 5 prioritized policy actions included three actions in the food composition domain (e.g. setting mandatory food composition targets), one action in the food prices domain and one action in the food promotion domain. The Top 5 prioritized infrastructure support actions included three actions in the leadership domain (e.g. developing a high-level NCDs Prevention Strategy) and two actions in the monitoring domain.

conclusionsThere is large potential for the EU to strengthen its policies and infrastructure support in order to improve food environments. This study specifies priority actions for the EU to create healthy food environments.

Indexed as

Health PromotionNoncommunicable DiseasesEuropean UnionGovernmentHumansNutrition Policy

Identifiers

PMID35265982
PMCPMC9159309

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.