ArticlePublic health nutrition2025
A scoping review of assessment of front-of-pack labeling policy implementation and response in low-and middle-income countries.
Article in Public health nutrition, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDespite growing front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) policy implementation in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC), research approaches for evaluating these policies remain poorly characterized, hindering evidence-based policy development and methodological gaps. This study explored research approaches, frameworks, and methods used in assessing FOPL policy implementation and response in LMIC.
designSystematic search of five databases, including Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health, and CINAHL, for peer-reviewed articles published between 2014-2025. Studies on FOPL policy implementation or response in LMIC were included. Data on study characteristics, methods, and findings were extracted and synthesized.
settingLMIC.
participantsAll populations.
resultsThirty-one studies revealed significant research imbalances. Implementation studies (
conclusionsThis review reveals critical gaps in FOPL implementation research in LMIC, with evidence heavily skewed toward consumer responses and geographically concentrated in Latin America. Future research should prioritize implementation science approaches, geographical diversity, and understanding policy processes in resource-constrained settings to develop effective, context-appropriate FOPL policies.
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.