Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, OxfordOX3 7LF, UK.
Washington Singer Laboratories, Perry Road, University of Exeter, ExeterEX4 4QG, UK.
Public Health Nutr. 2020 Jun;23(8):1281-1296. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019004129. Epub 2020 Mar 25.
There are concerns that price promotions encourage unhealthy dietary choices. This review aims to answer the following research questions (RQ1) what is the prevalence of price promotions on foods in high-income settings, and (RQ2) are price promotions more likely to be found on unhealthy foods?
Systematic review of articles published in English, in peer-review journals, after 1 January 2000.
Included studies measured the prevalence of price promotions (i.e. percentage of foods carrying a price promotion out of the total number of foods available to purchase) in retail settings, in upper-mid to high-income countries.
'Price promotion' was defined as a consumer-facing temporary price reduction or discount available to all customers. The control group/comparator was the equivalent products without promotions. The primary outcome for this review was the prevalence of price promotions, and the secondary outcome was the difference between the proportions of price promotions on healthy and unhealthy foods.
Nine studies (239 344 observations) were included for the meta-analysis for RQ1, the prevalence of price promotions ranged from 6 % (95 % CI 2 %, 15 %) for energy-dense nutrient-poor foods to 15 % (95 % CI 9 %, 25 %) for cereals, grains, breads and other starchy carbohydrates. However, the I-squared statistic was 99 % suggesting a very high level of heterogeneity. Four studies were included for the analysis of RQ2, of which two supported the hypothesis that price promotions were more likely to be found on unhealthy foods.
The prevalence of price promotions is very context specific, and any proposed regulations should be supported by studies conducted within the proposed setting(s).
有观点认为价格促销会鼓励不健康的饮食选择。本综述旨在回答以下研究问题(RQ1):高收入环境中食品价格促销的流行程度如何,以及(RQ2)价格促销更有可能出现在不健康食品上吗?
对 2000 年 1 月 1 日以后发表的、在同行评议期刊上的英文文章进行系统综述。
纳入的研究测量了零售环境中(即,可购买的全部食品中带有价格促销的食品所占的百分比)价格促销的流行程度,纳入的国家为中高收入至高收入国家。
“价格促销”的定义是面向消费者的、面向所有顾客的临时性降价或折扣。对照组/比较组为没有促销的同类产品。本综述的主要结局为价格促销的流行程度,次要结局为健康食品与不健康食品的价格促销比例差异。
有 9 项研究(239344 例观察)纳入 RQ1 的荟萃分析,价格促销的流行程度范围为:能量密集型、营养贫乏型食品为 6%(95%CI 2%,15%),谷物、面包和其他含淀粉碳水化合物为 15%(95%CI 9%,25%)。然而,I 平方统计量为 99%,提示存在极高的异质性。有 4 项研究纳入 RQ2 的分析,其中 2 项支持价格促销更有可能出现在不健康食品上的假设。
价格促销的流行程度具有很强的情境特异性,任何拟议的监管措施都应得到在所提议的环境(或多个环境)中进行的研究的支持。