Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35670030›Full record

SynthesisObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2022

Co-creation of healthier food retail environments: A systematic review to explore the type of stakeholders and their motivations and stage of engagement.

Carmen Vargas, Jillian Whelan, Julie Brimblecombe, Jessica Brock, Meaghan Christian, Steven Allender

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Co-creation of healthier food retail environments: A systematic review to explore the type of stakeholders and their motivations and stage of engagement.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Developing the Sus-Health Index: a combined measure for describing environmental impact and nutritive value of foods and meals.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    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

6 authors.

Carmen VargasGlobal Obesity Centre (GLOBE), Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6166-8897
Jillian WhelanGlobal Obesity Centre (GLOBE), Institute for Health Transformation, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9434-109X
Julie BrimblecombeDepartment of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University Clayton, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jessica BrockCentre for Food Policy, City University of London, London, UK.
Meaghan ChristianDepartment of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University Clayton, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Steven AllenderGlobal Obesity Centre (GLOBE), Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4842-3294

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo synthesize peer-reviewed literature that utilize co-creation principles in healthy food retail initiatives.

methodsSystematic review of six databases from inception to September 2021. Screening and quality assessment were carried out by two authors independently. Studies were included if they were conducted in food retail stores, used a collaborative model, and aimed to improve the healthiness of the food retail environment. Studies excluded were implemented in restaurants, fast food chains, or similar or did not utilize some form of collaboration. Extracted data included the type of stakeholders engaged, level of engagement, stakeholder motivation, and barriers and enablers of the co-creation process.

findingsAfter screening 6951 articles by title and abstract, 131 by full text, 23 manuscripts that describe 20 separate studies from six countries were included. Six were implemented in low-income communities and eight among Indigenous people groups. A common aim was to increase access to, and availability of, healthy products. A diverse range of co-creation approaches, theoretical perspectives, and study designs were observed. The three most common stakeholders involved were researchers, corporate representatives or store owners, and governments.

conclusionsSome evidence exists of the benefits of co-creation to improve the healthiness of food retail environments. The field may benefit from structured guidance on the theory and practice of co-creation.

Indexed as

Food SupplyMotivationCommerceEnvironmentFast FoodsHumansRestaurantsco-creationfood outletsfood retail environmentsparticipatory research

Identifiers

PMID35670030
PMCPMC9540769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.