• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

成本效益和成本效用分析表明,在澳大利亚,超市货架标签促进更健康包装产品具有潜在的性价比。

Cost-Benefit and Cost-Utility Analyses to Demonstrate the Potential Value-for-Money of Supermarket Shelf Tags Promoting Healthier Packaged Products in Australia.

机构信息

Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong 3220, Australia.

Global Obesity Centre, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong 3220, Australia.

出版信息

Nutrients. 2022 May 3;14(9):1919. doi: 10.3390/nu14091919.

DOI:10.3390/nu14091919
PMID:35565886
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9103654/
Abstract

The supermarket environment impacts the healthiness of food purchased and consumed. Shelf tags that alert customers to healthier packaged products can improve the healthiness of overall purchases. This study assessed the potential value-for-money of implementing a three-year shelf tag intervention across all major supermarket chains in Australia. Cost-benefit analyses (CBA) and cost-utility analyses (CUA) were conducted based on results of a 12-week non-randomised controlled trial of a shelf tag intervention in seven Australian supermarkets. The change in energy density of all packaged foods purchased during the trial was used to estimate population-level changes in mean daily energy intake. A multi-state, multiple-cohort Markov model estimated the subsequent obesity-related health and healthcare cost outcomes over the lifetime of the 2019 Australian population. The CBA and CUA took societal and healthcare sector perspectives, respectively. The intervention was estimated to produce a mean reduction in population body weight of 1.09 kg. The net present value of the intervention was approximately AUD 17 billion (B). Over 98% of the intervention costs were borne by supermarkets. CUA findings were consistent with the CBA-the intervention was dominant, producing both health benefits and cost-savings. Shelf tags are likely to offer excellent value-for-money from societal and healthcare sector perspectives.

摘要

超市环境会影响所购买和食用食品的健康程度。提醒顾客注意更健康包装产品的货架标签可以改善整体购买的健康程度。本研究评估了在澳大利亚所有主要连锁超市实施为期三年的货架标签干预措施的潜在性价比。基于对澳大利亚 7 家超市货架标签干预措施的 12 周非随机对照试验的结果,进行了成本效益分析(CBA)和成本效用分析(CUA)。试验期间购买的所有包装食品的能量密度变化用于估计人群中平均每日能量摄入的变化。多状态、多队列马尔可夫模型估计了 2019 年澳大利亚人口一生中与肥胖相关的健康和医疗保健成本结果。CBA 和 CUA 分别从社会和医疗保健部门的角度考虑。干预措施预计将使人群体重平均减轻 1.09 公斤。该干预措施的净现值约为 170 亿澳元(B)。超过 98%的干预成本由超市承担。CUA 的发现与 CBA 一致——该干预措施具有优势,既能带来健康益处,又能节省成本。从社会和医疗保健部门的角度来看,货架标签很可能具有极高的性价比。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/73d5/9103654/7d65ec7df252/nutrients-14-01919-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/73d5/9103654/e258fd4efa62/nutrients-14-01919-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/73d5/9103654/7d65ec7df252/nutrients-14-01919-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/73d5/9103654/e258fd4efa62/nutrients-14-01919-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/73d5/9103654/7d65ec7df252/nutrients-14-01919-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Cost-Benefit and Cost-Utility Analyses to Demonstrate the Potential Value-for-Money of Supermarket Shelf Tags Promoting Healthier Packaged Products in Australia.成本效益和成本效用分析表明,在澳大利亚,超市货架标签促进更健康包装产品具有潜在的性价比。
Nutrients. 2022 May 3;14(9):1919. doi: 10.3390/nu14091919.
2
Change in the Healthiness of Foods Sold in an Australian Supermarket Chain Following Implementation of a Shelf Tag Intervention Based on the Health Star Rating System.澳大利亚连锁超市实施货架标签干预措施(基于健康星级评分系统)后销售食品的健康度变化。
Nutrients. 2022 Jun 9;14(12):2394. doi: 10.3390/nu14122394.
3
Consumers' Response to an On-Shelf Nutrition Labelling System in Supermarkets: Evidence to Inform Policy and Practice.消费者对超市货架营养标签系统的反应:为政策和实践提供信息的证据
Milbank Q. 2017 Sep;95(3):494-534. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12277.
4
The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.“IGA健康饮食”超市随机对照试验:过程评估
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Mar 12;18(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01104-z.
5
Can unhealthy food purchases at checkout counters be discouraged by introducing healthier snacks? A real-life experiment in supermarkets in deprived urban areas in the Netherlands.通过引入更健康的零食,能否抑制在收银台购买不健康食品的行为?荷兰贫困城市地区超市的一项真实实验。
BMC Public Health. 2020 Apr 21;20(1):542. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08608-6.
6
The impact of shelf tags with Nutri-Score on consumer purchases: a difference-in-difference analysis of a natural experiment in supermarkets of a major retailer in Belgium.带有 Nutri-Score 的货架标签对消费者购买行为的影响:对比利时一家主要零售商超市自然实验的双重差分分析。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Nov 18;18(1):150. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01207-7.
7
Economic evaluation of price discounts and skill-building strategies on purchase and consumption of healthy food and beverages: The SHELf randomized controlled trial.价格折扣与技能培养策略对健康食品和饮料购买及消费影响的经济学评估:SHELf随机对照试验
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Jun;159:83-91. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.015. Epub 2016 Apr 16.
8
Trends (2014-2018) in the healthiness of packaged food purchases of Australian consumers before and after the introduction of voluntary Health Star Rating nutrition labels.2014-2018 年澳大利亚消费者在引入自愿性营养星级标签前后购买包装食品的健康趋势。
Public Health Nutr. 2024 Apr 11;27(1):e144. doi: 10.1017/S1368980024000892.
9
The effect of a shelf placement intervention on sales of healthier and less healthy breakfast cereals in supermarkets: A co-designed pilot study.货架摆放干预对超市更健康和不健康早餐麦片销售的影响:一项联合设计的试点研究。
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Dec;266:113337. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113337. Epub 2020 Sep 1.
10
Modelled Cost-Effectiveness of a Package Size Cap and a Kilojoule Reduction Intervention to Reduce Energy Intake from Sugar-Sweetened Beverages in Australia.澳大利亚包装尺寸限制和降低千焦耳干预措施减少含糖饮料能量摄入的成本效益模型研究。
Nutrients. 2017 Sep 6;9(9):983. doi: 10.3390/nu9090983.

引用本文的文献

1
'A recipe for cultural disaster!'- a case study of Woolworths Group's proposal to build an alcohol megastore in Darwin, Northern Territory.“文化灾难的处方!”- 以伍尔沃思集团(Woolworths Group)在北领地达尔文市(Darwin, Northern Territory)提议建造一个酒类专卖店为例。
Global Health. 2023 Jun 10;19(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s12992-023-00938-5.
2
Change in the Healthiness of Foods Sold in an Australian Supermarket Chain Following Implementation of a Shelf Tag Intervention Based on the Health Star Rating System.澳大利亚连锁超市实施货架标签干预措施(基于健康星级评分系统)后销售食品的健康度变化。
Nutrients. 2022 Jun 9;14(12):2394. doi: 10.3390/nu14122394.

本文引用的文献

1
Modelling the potential health and economic benefits of reducing population sitting time in Australia.建模减少澳大利亚人口久坐时间的潜在健康和经济效益。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2022 Mar 19;19(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s12966-022-01276-2.
2
Factors Influencing Implementation, Sustainability and Scalability of Healthy Food Retail Interventions: A Systematic Review of Reviews.影响健康食品零售干预措施实施、可持续性和可扩展性的因素:系统评价综述。
Nutrients. 2022 Jan 11;14(2):294. doi: 10.3390/nu14020294.
3
A cost-benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments.
用于辅助澳大利亚政府决策的预防性健康干预措施的成本效益分析框架。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2021 Dec 19;19(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00796-w.
4
The impact of shelf tags with Nutri-Score on consumer purchases: a difference-in-difference analysis of a natural experiment in supermarkets of a major retailer in Belgium.带有 Nutri-Score 的货架标签对消费者购买行为的影响:对比利时一家主要零售商超市自然实验的双重差分分析。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Nov 18;18(1):150. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01207-7.
5
Economic evaluation of nutrition interventions: Does one size fit all?营养干预措施的经济学评估:一种方法适用于所有人吗?
Health Policy. 2021 Sep;125(9):1238-1246. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.06.009. Epub 2021 Jun 29.
6
Systematic Review to Update 'Value of a Statistical Life' Estimates for Australia.系统综述更新澳大利亚“统计生命价值”估计。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jun 7;18(11):6168. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18116168.
7
Allocating Public Spending Efficiently: Is There a Need for a Better Mechanism to Inform Decisions in the UK and Elsewhere?高效分配公共支出:英国和其他国家是否需要更好的决策信息机制?
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021 Sep;19(5):635-644. doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00648-2. Epub 2021 Jun 9.
8
The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.“IGA健康饮食”超市随机对照试验:过程评估
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Mar 12;18(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01104-z.
9
A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Health-Promoting Food Retail-Based Interventions.促进健康食品零售干预措施的经济评价的系统评价。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Feb 2;18(3):1356. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18031356.
10
Australian Consumers Are Willing to Pay for the Health Star Rating Front-of-Pack Nutrition Label.澳大利亚消费者愿意为营养标签前置评级系统(Health Star Rating)买单。
Nutrients. 2020 Dec 18;12(12):3876. doi: 10.3390/nu12123876.