SynthesisFrontiers in public health2024
Strategies associated with improved healthiness of consumer purchasing in supermarket interventions: a systematic overview of reviews and evaluation of primary articles.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthier Supermarkets: Aligning Retailer and Consumer Perspectives on Evidence-Based Strategies to Improve Purchase Behaviour.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Can (dynamic) social norms encourage plant-based food purchases? a quasi-experimental study in real-world Dutch supermarkets.BMC medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Growing evidence suggests that it is possible to change the retail food environment to enable healthier choices via in-store interventions. It has been difficult to draw clear conclusions as to which interventions are most effective in positively influencing consumer purchasing behaviour given the significant heterogeneity within the food retail research literature. The aim of this study was to (1) summarise current high-quality systematic, scoping, and/or narrative reviews (Part I: overview of reviews); and (2) synthesise high-quality original research, to understand the range, types and effectiveness of strategies implemented in food retail settings (Part II: evaluation of primary studies). Methods: To identify reviews describing the effects of intervention strategies aiming to improve the healthiness of consumer purchasing in supermarkets, a systematic search across seven electronic databases was completed in April 2023. The methodological quality of reviews was assessed using the risk of bias in systematic reviews for systematic and scoping reviews, and the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles for narrative reviews. High-quality reviews were further inspected and synthesised narratively (Part I). Next, to understand strategies associated with improved healthiness of consumer purchasing high-quality, primary articles from high-quality reviews identified in Part I were retrieved, and the strategies implemented within these interventions were summarised (Part II). Results: Thirty-eight reviews met the inclusion criteria for Part I; two-thirds ( Conclusion: Promotion, pricing and prompting were the most commonly tested strategies across the overview of reviews and review of primary articles. Promotion, in combination with other strategies, and pricing appear to be most promising, but the effectiveness of pricing strategies may vary by sub-groups of the population. How pricing and promotion in combination with other strategies can be implemented responsibly and sustainably to change purchase habits towards healthier items should be explored further. Systematic Review registration: OSF, https://osf.io/jyg73/.
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.