ArticlePublic health nutrition2024
Examining public support for comprehensive policy packages to tackle unhealthy food environments.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study examines public support - and its drivers - for comprehensive policy packages (i.e. bundles of coherent policy measures introduced together) aimed at improving food environments.
designParticipants completed an online survey with a choice-based conjoint experiment, where they evaluated pairs of policy packages comprising up to seven distinct food environment measures. After choosing a preferred package or opting for a single policy, participants designed their ideal policy package. Based on their choices, respondents were categorised as resistant, inclined or supportive towards policy packaging according to their frequency of opting out for single measures and the number of policies they included in their ideal package.
settingThe study was conducted in Germany via an online survey.
participantsThe sample included 1200 eligible German voters, recruited based on age, gender and income quotas.
resultsBased on both opt-out frequency (44·7 %) and ideal policy packaging (72·8 %) outcomes, most respondents were inclined towards policy packages. The inclusion of fiscal incentives and school-based measures in packages enhanced support, while fiscal disincentives reduced it. Key drivers of support included beliefs about the importance of diet-related issues and the role of government in regulation, while socio-demographic factors, political leaning and personal experience with diet-related disease had minimal impact.
conclusionsThe results reveal public appetite for policy packages to address unhealthy food environments, contingent on package design and beliefs about the issue's severity and legitimacy of intervention. Public health advocates should design and promote policy packages aligned with public preferences, especially given anticipated opposition from commercial interests.
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.