Regarding the paper ‘The impact of a supermarket nutrition rating system on purchases of nutritious and less nutritious foods’ by Cawley <i>et al</i>.

Blumberg, Jeffrey B.; Broihier, Kitty; Duncan, Alison; Fitzpatrick, Kelley; Fisher, Leslie; Nobel, Jeremy

doi:10.1017/s1368980014002766

Cited by 1 publication

(20 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…per person visiting one of the leisure centres on a given occasion, decreased from 16 ml to 11 ml, equivalent to a decrease by −27% (95% CI −59 to −3) at 12 monthsBrimblecombe 2017 Outcome measures : SSB sales per capita (ml/day) Definition of SSB : Brimblecombe 2017 reports that SSB were defined as "regular soda" Reported effects : Brimblecombe 2017 reports that SSB intake per capita and per day increased by 6% (95% CI −3 to 15) during the six‐month intervention period, and by 6% (95% CI −7 to 21) during the additional five‐month follow‐up period. SSB intake was 365 g/capita/day at baselineCawley 2015 Outcome measures : Unit sales of soda pop with zero stars (units/week) Definition of SSB : In Cawley 2015, beverages were classified with the Guiding Stars system. In this classification system, the category of soda beverages with zero stars includes most types of commercially‐available SSB.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this classification system, the category of soda beverages with zero stars includes most types of commercially‐available SSB. For further details see: Reported effects : Cawley 2015 reports that the number of units of SSB sold decreased by −27.4% at 16 monthsCohen 2015 Outcome measures: Selection and consumption of sugar‐sweetened milk Definition of SSB : Sugar‐sweetened milk, including, among others, chocolate‐flavoured milk Reported effects : Cohen 2015 reports that there was no statistically significant change (results not shown) in the selection and consumption of sugar‐sweetened milkCollins 2016 SNAP and Collins 2016 WIC Outcome measures : Intake of sugar from SSB (g/day) Definition of SSB : Collins 2016 reports that "[t]easpoons of added sugars are derived from reported frequencies of consuming sugar‐sweetened beverages (soda, fruit‐flavored drinks, and sugar or honey added to coffee or tea)" Reported effects : Collins 2016 SNAP reports that intake of sugar from SSB decreased by −0.5 g/day (95% CI −2 to 1) for the comparison of USD 60 versus no USD benefit per month, increased by 1 g/day (95% CI −1 to 3) for the comparison of USD 60 versus USD 30 benefit per month, and decreased by −2 g/day (95% CI −4 to 1) for the comparison of USD 30 versus no USD benefit per month. Collins 2016 WIC reports that intake of sugar from SSB decreased by −5 g/day (95% CI −8 to −3) for the comparison of 60 USD versus 0 USD benefit per month, decreased by −1 g/day (95% CI: −3 to 2) for the comparison of 60 USD versus 30 USD benefit per month, and decreased by −5 g/day (95% CI −8 to −2) for the comparison of 30 USD versus 0 USD benefit per monthCornelsen 2017 Outcome measures : Number of SSB sold per customer (units of SSB/customer) Definition of SSB : Cornelsen 2017 reports that the category of on‐menu SSB included home lemonade, Limonata, Aranciata, Bottlegreen Pressés, and Coca Cola.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Definition of SSB : In Cawley 2015, beverages were classified with the Guiding Stars system. In this classification system, the category of soda beverages with zero stars includes most types of commercially‐available SSB.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…of clusters or participants No. of studies Certainty of Evidence b Impact on direct and indirect measures of SSB intake A Labelling interventions A.1 Traffic‐light labelling SSB sales (12 months) 42 points‐of‐sale in 2 hospitals in 2 cities2 ITS studies⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE c Boelsen‐Robinson 2017 (units of red‐labelled beverages sold): −56% (95% CI −67 to − 45) Hartigan 2017 (share of red‐labelled beverages among all beverages sold): − 25 percentage points (P < 0.001) A.2 Nutritional rating score shelf‐labels SSB sales (7 to 11 months)442 stores from 4 chains in 2 countries1 ITS and 1 CBA study⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWCawley 2015 (units of SSB sold): −27.4% (no P value or CI reported) Hobin 2017 (share of beverages with zero stars (mainly SSB), coefficient estimate): − 0.026, P < 0.001 A.3 Menu‐board calorie labelling Beverage calories per transaction (4 to 12 months) 353 stores from 4 chains in 6 cities1 controlled ITS, 2 CBA studies⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW d,e Bollinger 2011 (beverage calories per transaction): − 0.3% (P < 0.01) Elbel 2013 (beverage calories per transaction): No effects (data not shown) Finkelstein 2011 (beverage calories per transaction): +1.7 kcal (95% CI − 1.5 to 4.9) A.4 Emoticon labelling Sugar‐sweetened milk selection (4 months) 186 students in 2 school cafeterias1 ITS study⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWSiegel 2016a (share of students selecting chocolate milk): − 16 percentage points (95% CI − 27 to − 4) B Nutrition standards in public institutions B.1 Reduced availability of SSB in schools SSB intake (6 to 24 months) 18,238 students in 240 schools5 CBA studies ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWCradock 2011 (total SSB intake): − 99 ml/day (95% CI − 173 to − 26) Whatley Blum 2008 (total SSB intake): − 14 ml/day (95% CI − 69 to 41) Bauhoff 2014 cohort (share of students consuming any SSB): − 4 percentage points (95% CI − 10 to 2) Bauhoff 2014 crosssectional (share of students consuming any SSB): − 10 percentage points (95% CI − 17 to − 3) Schwartz 2009 (total intake of beverages excluded by nutrition standards (mainly SSB) in schools): Decrease (ß = − 0.23, P < 0.05) B.2 Improved access to drinking water in schools SSB intake (3 to 13 months) 11,253 students in 62 schools1 CBA study, 3 NRCTs f ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW d,f,g Elbel 2015a (total SSB intake): No statistically significant effect (data not shown) Muckelbauer 2009 (total SSB inta...…”

Section: Summary Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…of clusters or participants No. of studies Certainty of Evidence Impact A.1 Traffic‐light labelling SSB sales (12 months) 42 points‐of‐sale in 2 hospitals in 2 cities2 ITS studies⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE a Boelsen‐Robinson 2017 (units of red‐labelled beverages sold): −56% (95% CI −67 to −45) Hartigan 2017 (share of red‐labelled beverages among all beverages sold) : −25 percentage points (P < 0.001) Revenue b (12 months) 42 points‐of‐sale in 2 hospitals in 2 cities2 ITS studies⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWBoelsen‐Robinson 2017 (total vending machine revenue): −21% (95% CI −29 to −12) Hartigan 2017 (monthly revenue from beverages): Increase (from USD 34,624 at baseline to USD 35,390 during the intervention, no statistical analyses shown) A.2 Nutritional rating score shelf‐labels in supermarkets SSB sales (7 to 11 months)442 stores from 4 chains in 2 countries1 ITS and 1 CBA study⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWCawley 2015 (units of SSB sold): −27.3% (no P value or CI reported) Hobin 2017 (share of beverages with zero stars (mainly SSB), coefficient estimate): −0.026, P < 0.001 Revenue b (7 to 11 months) 442 stores from 4 chains in 2 countries1 ITS and 1 CBA study⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWCawley 2015 (total unit sales): −4.9% (95% CI −9.7 to 0.07) Hobin 2017 (total revenue, coefficient estimate): +0.042, P < 0.01 Compensatory consumption b (7 to 11 months) 442 stores from 4 chains in 2 countries1 ITS and 1 CBA study⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWCawley 2015 (number of zero‐star rated items sold per week in the average food and beverage category): −3183 units/week (95% CI −5454 to −913) .Hobin 2017 (average star rating of all products sold, coefficient estimate): +0.01 (P < 0.001) . A.3 Menu‐board calorie labelling in chain restaurants and cafés Beverage calories per transaction (4 to 12 months) 353 stores from 4 chains in 6 cities1 controlled ITS, 2 CBA studies⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW c,d Bollinger 2011 (beverage calories per transaction): −0.3% (P < 0.01) Elbel 2013 (beverage calories per transaction): No effects (data not shown) Finkelstein 2011 (beverage calories per transaction): +1.7 kcal (95% CI −1.5 to 4.9) Revenue b (11 months) 316 stores from 1 chain in 2 cities1 controlled ITS⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW c,e Bollinger 2011 (total store revenue, regression coefficient): +0.005, P > 0.05 Fast‐food restaurant visits* (4 months) 23 stores from 2 chains in 2 cities(1 CBA study)⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW c,e Elbel 2013 (number...…”

Section: Summary Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health

Philipsborn

Stratil

Burns

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

168

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFrequent consumption of excess amounts of sugar‐sweetened beverages (SSB) is a risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dental caries. Environmental interventions, i.e. interventions that alter the physical or social environment in which individuals make beverage choices, have been advocated as a means to reduce the consumption of SSB.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of environmental interventions (excluding taxation) on the consumption of sugar‐sweetened beverages and sugar‐sweetened milk, diet‐related anthropometric measures and health outcomes, and on any reported unintended consequences or adverse outcomes.Search methodsWe searched 11 general, specialist and regional databases from inception to 24 January 2018. We also searched trial registers, reference lists and citations, scanned websites of relevant organisations, and contacted study authors.Selection criteriaWe included studies on interventions implemented at an environmental level, reporting effects on direct or indirect measures of SSB intake, diet‐related anthropometric measures and health outcomes, or any reported adverse outcome. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non‐randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before‐after (CBA) and interrupted‐time‐series (ITS) studies, implemented in real‐world settings with a combined length of intervention and follow‐up of at least 12 weeks and at least 20 individuals in each of the intervention and control groups. We excluded studies in which participants were administered SSB as part of clinical trials, and multicomponent interventions which did not report SSB‐specific outcome data. We excluded studies on the taxation of SSB, as these are the subject of a separate Cochrane Review.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risks of bias of included studies. We classified interventions according to the NOURISHING framework, and synthesised results narratively and conducted meta‐analyses for two outcomes relating to two intervention types. We assessed our confidence in the certainty of effect estimates with the GRADE framework as very low, low, moderate or high, and presented ‘Summary of findings’ tables.Main resultsWe identified 14,488 unique records, and assessed 1030 in full text for eligibility. We found 58 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, including 22 RCTs, 3 NRCTs, 14 CBA studies, and 19 ITS studies, with a total of 1,180,096 participants. The median length of follow‐up was 10 months. The studies included children, teenagers and adults, and were implemented in a variety of settings, including schools, retailing and food service establishments. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, and most studies used non‐randomised designs. The studies examine a broad range of interventions, and we present results for these separately.Labelling interventions (8 studies): We found moderate‐certainty evidence that traffic‐light labelli...

show abstract