ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Healthier Supermarkets: Aligning Retailer and Consumer Perspectives on Evidence-Based Strategies to Improve Purchase Behaviour.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesDespite promising evidence for the influence of in-store supermarket initiatives to improve the healthiness of retail food environments, both retailer and consumer perspectives have not been examined simultaneously. The objectives of this research were to examine evidence-based initiatives through (1) measuring retailer perspectives on factors likely to influence uptake; (2) collecting consumer perspectives on which are most likely to promote healthier purchasing behaviour; and (3) synthesising findings to identify 'win-win-win' strategies across evidence, and stakeholder perspectives.
methodsInitiatives were drawn from scientific evidence across five overarching strategies: pricing, proximity, prompting, promotion, and healthy default picks. Retailers additionally assessed a sixth category, 'promotion plus', comprising multi-component initiatives that combine promotion with another strategy; this category was not assessed by consumers. Data for Part 1 used an online survey to capture perspectives of supermarket retail decision-makers (n = 5; treated as exploratory) on effectiveness, feasibility, scalability and sustainability of initiatives. Part 2 used a computer-assisted telephone survey of South Australian adults sampled through a population health survey ('consumers'; n = 2877) to capture consumer perspectives on a subset of eight of these initiatives, adapted for the consumer shopping context. Consumers rated the perceived likelihood that each initiative would encourage healthier purchasing. In Part 3, data were triangulated into a matrix representing best cases across evidence and stakeholder groups.
resultsPricing and proximity were rated most favourably (69% to 87%, and 71% to 75%, respectively) across retailer and consumer perspectives and represent possible targets for voluntary retailer adoption. Prompting, promotion, and healthy default picks were rated more favourably by consumers (68% to 71%) than by retailers (50% to 60%). The retailer-only promotion plus category had the most promising evidence base but the lowest retailer rating (49%).
conclusionsPricing and proximity strategies appear to offer the strongest 'win-win-win' opportunities to improve the healthiness of consumer purchasing behaviour, though retailer findings should be interpreted as exploratory given the small retailer sample. The alignment between evidence/retailer/consumer perspectives can guide researchers, policymakers, and retailers in prioritising initiatives with real-world potential.
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.