Piernas Carmen, Cook Brian, Stevens Richard, Stewart Cristina, Hollowell Jennifer, Scarborough Peter, Jebb Susan A
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
PLoS Med. 2021 Jul 15;18(7):e1003715. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003715. eCollection 2021 Jul.
Reducing meat consumption could bring health and environmental benefits, but there is little research to date on effective interventions to achieve this. A non-randomised controlled intervention study was used to evaluate whether prominent positioning of meat-free products in the meat aisle was associated with a change in weekly mean sales of meat and meat-free products.
Weekly sales data were obtained from 108 stores: 20 intervention stores that moved a selection of 26 meat-free products into a newly created meat-free bay within the meat aisle and 88 matched control stores. The primary outcome analysis used a hierarchical negative binomial model to compare changes in weekly sales (units) of meat products sold in intervention versus control stores during the main intervention period (Phase I: February 2019 to April 2019). Interrupted time series analysis was also used to evaluate the effects of the Phase I intervention. Moreover, 8 of the 20 stores enhanced the intervention from August 2019 onwards (Phase II intervention) by adding a second bay of meat-free products into the meat aisle, which was evaluated following the same analytical methods. During the Phase I intervention, sales of meat products (units/store/week) decreased in intervention (approximately -6%) and control stores (-5%) without significant differences (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01 [95% CI 0.95-1.07]. Sales of meat-free products increased significantly more in the intervention (+31%) compared to the control stores (+6%; IRR 1.43 [95% CI 1.30-1.57]), mostly due to increased sales of meat-free burgers, mince, and sausages. Consistent results were observed in interrupted time series analyses where the effect of the Phase II intervention was significant in intervention versus control stores.
Prominent positioning of meat-free products into the meat aisle in a supermarket was not effective in reducing sales of meat products, but successfully increased sales of meat-free alternatives in the longer term. A preregistered protocol (https://osf.io/qmz3a/) was completed and fully available before data analysis.
减少肉类消费可带来健康和环境效益,但迄今为止,关于实现这一目标的有效干预措施的研究很少。一项非随机对照干预研究用于评估在肉类过道显著摆放无肉产品是否与肉类和无肉产品的每周平均销售额变化有关。
从108家商店获取每周销售数据:20家干预商店将26种无肉产品选品移至肉类过道内新设立的无肉区,88家匹配的对照商店。主要结局分析采用分层负二项模型,比较主要干预期(第一阶段:2019年2月至2019年4月)干预商店与对照商店销售的肉类产品每周销售额(单位)的变化。中断时间序列分析也用于评估第一阶段干预的效果。此外,20家商店中的8家从2019年8月起加强干预(第二阶段干预),在肉类过道增加第二个无肉产品区,并采用相同分析方法进行评估。在第一阶段干预期间,干预商店(约-6%)和对照商店(-5%)的肉类产品销售额均下降,无显著差异(发病率比[IRR]1.01[95%CI 0.95-1.07])。与对照商店(+6%;IRR 1.43[95%CI 1.30-1.57])相比,干预商店的无肉产品销售额显著增加更多(+31%),主要是由于无肉汉堡、肉末和香肠的销售额增加。在中断时间序列分析中观察到一致结果,即第二阶段干预在干预商店与对照商店中的效果显著。
在超市肉类过道显著摆放无肉产品对减少肉类产品销售额无效,但从长远来看成功增加了无肉替代品的销售额。一份预先注册的方案(https://osf.io/qmz3a/)在数据分析前已完成并完全可用。