ArticlePerspectives in public health2023
Regulatory mechanisms to create healthier environments: planning appeals and hot food takeaways in England.
Article in Perspectives in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying online only delivery food outlets in the North of England using data from food delivery apps.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Planning guidance to limit hot food takeaways: Understanding the possible economic impacts.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Changes in the number of new takeaway food outlets associated with adoption of management zones around schools: A natural experimental evaluation in England.SSM - population health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo explore existing regulatory mechanisms to restrict hot food takeaway (HFT) outlets through further understanding processes at local and national levels.
methodsThe Planning Appeals Portal was utilised to identify recent HFT appeal cases across England between December 2016 and March 2020. Eight case study sites were identified using a purposive sampling technique and interviews carried out with 12 professionals involved in planning and health to explore perceptions of and including factors that may impact on the HFT appeal process. Additionally, documents applicable to each case were analysed and a survey completed by seven Local Authority (LA) health professionals. To confirm findings, interpretation meetings were conducted with participants and a wider group of planning and public health professionals, including a representative from the Planning Inspectorate.
resultsEight case study sites were identified, and 12 interviews conducted. Participants perceived that LAs would be better able to work on HFT appeal cases if professionals had a good understanding of the planning process/the application of local planning policy and supplementary planning documents; adequate time and capacity to deal with appeals cases; access to accurate, robust, and up to date information; support and commitment from elected members and senior management; good lines of communication with local groups/communities interested in the appeal; information and resources that are accessible and easy to interpret across professional groups.
conclusionsCommunication across professional groups appeared to be a key factor in successfully defending decisions. Understanding the impact of takeaway outlets on health and communities in the long term was also important. To create a more robust appeals case and facilitate responsiveness, professionals involved in an appeal should know where to locate current records and statistical data. The enthusiasm of staff and support from senior management/elected officials will play a significant role in driving these agendas forward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.