A systematic review of the influences of food store product placement on dietary-related outcomes

Shaw, Sarah; Ntani, Georgia; Baird, Janis; Vogel, Christina

doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaa024

Cited by 48 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple studies have cited the importance of particular determinants, such as taste [ 51 , 52 ], healthiness/nutrition [ 53 ], time and convenience [ 54 ], gender [ 55 ], psychological or behavioural factors [ 54 ], societal influence [ 51 ], accessibility [ 6 ], packaging and labelling [ 56 , 57 ], advertising, marketing, and promotion [ 55 , 58 ], availability [ 6 , 54 , 59 ], and sociocultural acceptability [ 54 ]. Food store practices, including placement of healthy and unhealthy products, the amount of shelf-space allocated to these [ 60 ], and promotions and pricing policies, such as subsidising fresh foods [ 48 , 61 ] have been cited as important factors in consumer food choice too. Some scholars consider that the perception that a recommended diet costs more than current diets is a contributing factor to food choice, especially in low-income households [ 54 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affordability of current, and healthy, more equitable, sustainable diets by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness in Queensland: insights into food choice

Lee

Patay

Herron

et al. 2021

Int J Equity Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Poor diet is the leading preventable risk factor contributing to the burden of disease globally and in Australia, and is inequitably distributed. As the price of healthy foods is a perceived barrier to improved diets, evidence on the cost and affordability of current (unhealthy) and recommended (healthy, more equitable and sustainable) diets is required to support policy action. Methods This study applied the Healthy Diets ASAP (Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing) methods protocol to measure the cost, cost differential and affordability of current and recommended diets for a reference household in Queensland, Australia. Food prices were collected in 18 randomly selected locations stratified by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness. Diet affordability was calculated for three income categories. Results Surprisingly, recommended diets would cost 20% less than the current diet in Queensland as a whole. Households spent around 60% of their food budget on discretionary choices (that is, those not required for health that are high in saturated fat, added sugar, salt and/or alcohol). Queensland families would need to spend around 23% of their income on recommended diets. However, recommended diets would not be affordable in low socioeconomic or very remote areas, costing 30 and 35% of median household income respectively. The government supplements due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic would improve affordability of recommended diets by 29%. Conclusions Study findings highlight that while price is one factor affecting consumer food choice, other drivers such as taste, convenience, advertising and availability are important. Nevertheless, the study found that recommended diets would be unaffordable in very remote areas, and that low-income families are likely experiencing food stress, irrespective of where they live in Queensland. Policy actions, such as increasing to 20% the current 10% tax differential between basic healthy, and unhealthy foods in Australia, and supplementing incomes of vulnerable households, especially in remote areas, are recommended to help improve diet equity and sustainability, and health and wellbeing for all.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affordability of current, and healthy, more equitable, sustainable diets by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness in Queensland: insights into food choice

Lee

Patay

Herron

et al. 2021

Int J Equity Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prominent positioning of meat-free products had a significant long-lasting effect on sales of these products. Recent systematic reviews support the value of positioning strategies in retail environments to improve the nutritional quality of food purchases [13,14]. Evidence suggests that there is a greater likelihood of change when more options are available [24], and repeated exposure can also elicit increased acceptability or establish a new social norm about the presence of new products [25].…”

Section: Plos Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systematic reviews that have drawn on broader evidence relating to interventions to shape food purchasing have found moderate-to low-quality evidence that product placement strategies (e.g., availability or prominent positioning (end of aisles, checkouts, or at eye level)) implemented in food retail environments can influence dietary behaviours [13,14]. Also, "crosscategory merchandising" (where complementary products are colocated in a store) is an established sales mechanism to increase sales [15,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the effect of moving meat-free products to the meat aisle on sales of meat and meat-free products: A non-randomised controlled intervention study in a large UK supermarket chain

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background 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. Methods and findings 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. Conclusions 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.

show abstract

“…With Woolworths, Coles, and Metcash (IGA) combined representing 75% of the grocery market share in Australia [7], the high percentage of unhealthy food on price promotions at prominent displays likely reflects the lived experience for the majority of Australians when shopping in supermarkets. Research has found that, independently, price promotions and placement strategies can increase food and beverage purchases and consumption [15,43,44], and combined, placement strategies can exacerbate the promotional effect of price promotions [19]. It is therefore reasonable to assume that an environment that favours price promotions on unhealthy foods and beverages, especially when located in promotional areas, will result in increased sales of unhealthy products.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Healthiness of Food and Beverages on Price Promotion at Promotional Displays: A Cross-Sectional Audit of Australian Supermarkets

Grigsby-Duffy

Schultz

Orellana

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supermarket environments can strongly influence purchasing decisions. Price promotions are recognised as a particularly persuasive tactic, but the healthiness of price promotions in prominent in-store locations is understudied. This study compared the prevalence and magnitude of price promotions on healthy and unhealthy food and beverages (foods) displayed at prominent in-store locations within Australian supermarkets, including analyses by supermarket group and area-level socio-economic position. A cross-sectional in-store audit of price promotions on foods at key display areas was undertaken in 104 randomly selected stores from major Australian supermarket groups (Woolworths, Coles, Aldi and independents) in Victoria, Australia. Of the display space dedicated to foods with price promotions, three of the four supermarket groups had a greater proportion of display space devoted to unhealthy (compared to healthy) foods at each promotional location measured (end of aisles: 66%; island bins: 53%; checkouts: 88%). Aldi offered very few price promotions. Few measures varied by area-level socio-economic position. This study demonstrated that price promotions at prominent in-store locations in Australian supermarkets favoured unhealthy foods. Marketing of this nature is likely to encourage the purchase of unhealthy foods, highlighting the need for retailers and policy-makers to consider addressing in-store pricing and placement strategies to encourage healthier food environments.

show abstract

A systematic review of the influences of food store product placement on dietary-related outcomes

Cited by 48 publications

References 76 publications

Affordability of current, and healthy, more equitable, sustainable diets by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness in Queensland: insights into food choice

Affordability of current, and healthy, more equitable, sustainable diets by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness in Queensland: insights into food choice

Estimating the effect of moving meat-free products to the meat aisle on sales of meat and meat-free products: A non-randomised controlled intervention study in a large UK supermarket chain

The Healthiness of Food and Beverages on Price Promotion at Promotional Displays: A Cross-Sectional Audit of Australian Supermarkets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About