Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Jun 1;107(6):1004-1016. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy045.
Diet is an important determinant of health, and food purchasing is a key antecedent to consumption.
We set out to evaluate the effectiveness of grocery store interventions to change food purchasing, and to examine whether effectiveness varied based on intervention components, setting, or socioeconomic status.
We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (search performed June 2017). Studies must have: aimed to change food purchasing; been implemented in grocery stores (real or simulated); reported purchasing; and had a minimal control or compared interventions fulfilling our criteria. Searching, screening, bias assessment, and data extraction followed Cochrane methods. We grouped studies by intervention type (economic, environmental, swaps, and/or education), synthesized results narratively, and conducted an exploratory qualitative comparative analysis.
We included 35 studies representing 89 interventions, >20,000 participants, and >800 stores. Risk of bias was mixed. Economic interventions showed the most promise, with 8 of the 9 studies in real stores and all 6 in simulated environments detecting an effect on purchasing. Swap interventions appeared promising in the 2 studies based in real stores. Store environment interventions showed mixed effects. Education-only interventions appeared effective in simulated environments but not in real stores. Available data suggested that effects of economic interventions did not differ by socioeconomic status, whereas for other interventions impact was variable. In our qualitative comparative analysis, economic interventions (regardless of setting) and environmental and swap interventions in real stores were associated with statistically significant changes in purchasing in the desired direction for ≥1 of the foods targeted by the intervention, whereas education-only interventions in real stores were not.
Findings suggest that interventions implemented in grocery stores-particularly ones that manipulate price, suggest swaps, and perhaps manipulate item availability-have an impact on purchasing and could play a role in public health strategies to improve health. Review protocol registered at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ as CRD42017068809.
饮食是健康的重要决定因素,而食品购买是消费的关键前提。
我们旨在评估杂货店干预措施改变食品购买的效果,并研究其效果是否因干预措施的组成部分、环境或社会经济地位而有所不同。
我们对随机对照试验进行了系统评价(搜索于 2017 年 6 月进行)。研究必须:旨在改变食品购买;在杂货店(真实或模拟)实施;报告购买情况;并具有最小的控制或比较符合我们标准的干预措施。搜索、筛选、偏倚评估和数据提取均遵循 Cochrane 方法。我们根据干预类型(经济、环境、交换和/或教育)对研究进行分组,以叙述性方式综合结果,并进行探索性定性比较分析。
我们纳入了 35 项研究,代表了 89 项干预措施,涉及 20,000 多名参与者和 800 多家商店。偏倚风险参差不齐。经济干预措施最有希望,其中 9 项真实商店研究和 6 项模拟环境研究均发现对购买有影响。基于真实商店的 2 项交换干预研究也显示出良好的前景。商店环境干预措施的效果不一。仅教育干预措施在模拟环境中效果明显,但在真实商店中效果不佳。现有数据表明,经济干预措施的效果不受社会经济地位的影响,而其他干预措施的效果则因干预措施的目标食品而异。在我们的定性比较分析中,经济干预措施(无论设置如何)以及真实商店中的环境和交换干预措施与干预措施目标食品中至少一种食品的购买量朝着预期方向发生统计学显著变化相关,而真实商店中的仅教育干预措施则不然。
研究结果表明,在杂货店实施的干预措施——特别是那些操纵价格、建议交换、也许操纵商品供应的干预措施——对购买行为有影响,并可能在改善健康的公共卫生策略中发挥作用。综述方案在 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ 上注册为 CRD42017068809。