Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36703194›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2023

UK government's new placement legislation is a 'good first step': a rapid qualitative analysis of consumer, business, enforcement and health stakeholder perspectives.

Sarah Muir, Preeti Dhuria, Emma Roe, Wendy Lawrence, Janis Baird, Christina Vogel

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03573973 (Nudging Healthier Dietary Habits), 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
–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.

NCT03573973 naunknown statusnot on this map

Nudging Healthier Dietary Habits: Evaluation of a Supermarket Placement Strategy in the WRAPPED Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustRan2018 to 2023Enrolled667ConditionsDiet ModificationArmsImproved product placement of fresh fruit and vegetables, Sham comparator
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  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

6 authors.

Sarah MuirMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. s.muir@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7444-7321
Preeti DhuriaMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Emma RoeSchool of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Wendy LawrenceMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Janis BairdMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Christina VogelMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/4National Institute for Health Research 17/44/46
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe current food system in England promotes a population diet that is high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS). To address this, the UK government has implemented legislation to restrict the promotion of HFSS products in prominent locations (e.g. store entrances, checkouts) in qualifying retailers since October 2022. This study investigated the perceived impact of the legislation for affected stakeholders.

methodsA pre-implementation rapid qualitative evaluation of stakeholder interviews. One hundred eight UK stakeholders participated in the study including 34 consumers, 24 manufacturers and retailers, 22 local authority enforcement officers and 28 academic and charitable health representatives. A participatory conference was used to enable policy recommendations to be confirmed by stakeholders.

resultsStakeholders perceived the legislation to be a 'good first step' towards improving population diet but recognised this needed to be considered amongst a range of long-term obesity policies. Areas of further support were identified and these are presented as six recommendations for government to support the successful implementation of the legislation: (1) provide a free central HFSS calculator, (2) refine legislation to enhance intent and clarity, (3) conduct a robust evaluation to assess intended and unintended outcomes, (4) provide greater support for smaller businesses, (5) provide ring-fenced resources to local authorities and (6) create and communicate a long-term roadmap for food and health.

conclusionsThis legislation has the potential to reduce impulse HFSS purchases and makes a solid start towards creating healthier retail outlets for consumers. Immediate government actions to create a freely accessible HFSS calculator, support smaller businesses and provide additional resources to local authorities would support successful implementation and enforcement. Independent evaluation of the implementation of the legislation will enable monitoring of potential unintended consequences identified in this study and support refinement of the legislation. A long-term roadmap is necessary to outline strategies to support equal access to healthier and sustainable food across the whole food system within the next 20-30 years.

Indexed as

CommerceFoodDietEnglandGovernmentHumansFood policyHFSS foodsPlacement legislationQualitative researchRetail food environmentStakeholder views

Identifiers

PMID36703194
PMCPMC9878939

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.