ArticleBMC public health2026
Benchmarking for continuous improvement in food retail environments: a systematic scoping review.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBenchmarking, closely related to audit and feedback processes, is an implementation strategy that continuously measures performance against defined functions and metrics and implements change accordingly. Benchmarking is increasingly being applied in public health nutrition to improve food environments for health. However, the process and mechanisms by which benchmarking interventions can drive continuous improvement in food retail settings is not well understood. We performed a systematic scoping review to identify existing food retail benchmarking initiatives, compare against an evidence-informed six-step benchmarking approach, and explore qualitative insights including underlying theories and enablers of benchmarking methodologies from existing research.
methodsWe searched five databases for studies published up to 2024, using search terms related to food retail settings and benchmarking.
resultsAnalysis of 46 papers found that all studies identified functions and metrics to benchmark against, while only one paper incorporated benchmarking as part of a continuous improvement cycle with repeated assessments. Approximately one-third of studies developed recommendations for retailers, with only eight studies describing feedback of results to retailers. Included studies originated from the fields of retail management (67%), public health nutrition (24%), environmental sustainability (7%) and one from the field of consumer affairs. Very few studies articulated a theory of change or logic model for their interventions. Enablers of effective benchmarking articulated within studies were found to be engagement from food retailers, access to food retail data, flexible and adaptable benchmarking tools and strategic communication of findings to retailers.
conclusionsOur findings suggest significant opportunities to strengthen benchmarking in the food retail setting as part of continuous improvement with greater emphasis on integrating theory as well as effective communication of feedback to retailers. This evidence can inform public health approaches to transform food retail environments for improved population nutrition.
trial registrationNot available.
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.