ArticleBMC public health2025
Identifying healthy food and beverages in food retail store point-of-sale systems: a feasibility and validity study.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth-promoting strategies targeting the food retail environment can influence consumer purchasing behaviour. Most strategies require the healthiness of available food and beverages to be determined. Healthiness classification systems exist; however, no system is linked to remote food retail point-of-sale systems. The objective of this study was to explore the feasibility and validity of a process to identify healthy food and beverages in food retail store point-of-sale systems, as applied in a discount card study in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, Australia.
methodsA convergent mixed methods study design was used. Feasibility was explored through semi-structured interviews with project and store team members involved in a process to identify healthy food and beverages in point-of-sale systems across five remote stores. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing alignment of classification of food and beverages via the expert-informed process used, with a technology-driven system underpinned by Australia's Health Star Rating and discretionary classification, the Thumbs Rating system.
resultsAll eight eligible project and store team members involved in the process were interviewed. The expert-informed process, while implemented successfully overall, was not entirely acceptable to participants. Challenges related to the manual classification of products, with participants recommending exploring automated processes to classify products. There was substantial alignment with technology-driven classification (86% of 6281 unique products). Misalignment was largely related to differences in criteria; the expert-informed process was underpinned by a food-based classification system, including selection of the healthier alternatives within food groups, and the Thumbs Rating system is underpinned by food-based classification with nutrient-profiling.
conclusionAlternative methods to the expert-informed process examined in this study should be considered to classify food and beverages in remote food retail point-of-sale systems. The Thumbs Rating provides a valid classification system and would provide an automated means of classification that could be linked to point-of-sale systems. A shift in classification for a small proportion of products, would need to be considered in applying the Thumbs Rating system to remote food retail interventions, or additional criteria overlaying the system could be implemented to meet specific criteria for targeted strategies.
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.