Table 2.
Characteristics and findings of the included reviews (n = 25).
| Author/Year of Publication; Type of Review; Number of Studies in Review (N) | Aim of the Review | Type of Food Retail Outlet | Type of Setting | Type of Intervention | Factors Influencing Implementation of Intervention | Factors Influencing Sustainability of Intervention | Factors Influencing Scalability of Intervention | Risk of Bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adam and Jensen 2016 [20] Systematic review N = 42 |
To systematically review the literature on effectiveness of food store interventions intended to promote the consumption of healthy foods | Grocery stores, supermarkets, and convenience stores | Community-based setting | Affordability (price), information and access/availability | ± Storeowner’s attitude and level of co-operation - Conflicts among intervention partners + Use of trained community members - Financial losses (perceived or actual) due to intervention; + Cultural/ethnic considerations + No profit loss |
± Storeowner’s attitude and level of co-operation + Community/consumer engagement + No profit loss |
Not reported | High quality |
| Beltran and Romero, 2019 [21] Systematic review N = 20 |
To identify relevant topics in the literature about healthy eating and restaurants | Restaurants | Community-based setting | Point of sale information, events and sales promotions | - Low consumer demand - Anticipated harm to profit - Higher cost of healthy ingredients - Concerns around loss of profit |
Not reported | Not reported | Low quality |
| Blake et al., 2019 [22] Systematic scoping review N = 107 |
To synthesise business outcomes of healthy food retail initiatives | Food and beverage stores, restaurants, vending machines | Community-based setting (except schools) | Availability, price, place, promotion | - Lack of required knowledge - Perceived low relevance leading to low level of satisfaction with the intervention strategy + Consumer satisfaction |
+ Profit driven | + Profit driven | High quality |
| Bucher et al., 2016 [23] Systematic review N = 15 |
To investigate the effect of positional changes of food placement on food choice | Laboratory | University, hospital setting | Product placement (proximity or order) | ± Retailers with greater power and control over the decisions (in comparison to manufacturers) | Not reported | Not reported | High quality |
| Buttriss et al., 2004 [24] Narrative review N = Not reported |
To review factors that influence food choice | Cafeteria and restaurants | Primary care, universities, schools, workplace | Pricing strategies | + Establishing partnerships with key stakeholders + Overall profitability + Adopting ‘a whole school approach’ policy |
+ Establishing partnerships with key stakeholders | Not reported | Low quality |
| Cameron et al., 2016 [25] Systematic review N = 50 |
To determine the effectiveness of supermarket-based interventions on the healthiness of consumer purchases | Supermarkets | Community-based setting | Product promotion, placement, mass media interventions | + Low-cost interventions that require little retailer input | + Low-cost interventions that require little retailer input | + Economically profit driven impact of the intervention on the retailer | Low quality |
| Escaron et al., 2013 [5] Systematic review N = 58 |
To synthesise the evidence on supermarket and grocery store interventions to promote healthful food choices | Supermarket and grocery store | Community-based setting | Point-of-purchase information (use of demonstrations, taste testing, signs, labels, printed materials) | + Working with community members to develop culturally relevant interventions + Combining demand-and supply-side strategies |
+ Working with community members to develop culturally relevant interventions | Not reported | Low quality |
| Gittelsohn et al., 2012 [26] Systematic review N = 16 |
To determine the impact of small-store interventions on food availability, dietary behaviors, and chronic disease risk | Small food store/corner stones, convenience stores, bodegas/tiendas and liquor stores | Rural and urban settings (in 6 countries) | Point-of-purchase (shelf labels, posters, coupons, vouchers, educational flyers, giveaways) | + Store owners and staff education and business training + No profit loss |
+ Incentivized partnership between producers, manufacturers, and distributors + No profit loss |
+ No profit loss | Low quality |
| Gittelsohn et al., 2013 [27] Systematic review N = 19 |
To systematically review community-based interventions aimed to increase access to and consumption of healthful foods | Carry out, fast-food and restaurants | Community-based setting | Increase access to and consumption of healthy foods | - Perception of intervention as burdensome by food-source owners + Incentives (such as free menu analyses and point-of-purchase materials) |
- Open volunteer enrollment leading to low reach (as assessed by counting consumers) + Engagement with staff |
Not reported | Low quality |
| Gittelsohn et al., 2017 [28] Systematic review N = 30 |
To determine the effect of food-pricing interventions on retail sales, consumer purchasing and consumption of food | Grocery stores, supermarkets, farmers markets, cafeterias, restaurants, corner stores | Worksite, sports gym, school, swimming pool, hospitals | Pricing intervention (alone or in combination with stocking, sales) | + No profit loss | + No profit loss | Not reported | High quality |
| Glanz et al., 2012 [29] Integrative review N = 125 |
To review research on in-store food marketing interventions | Grocery stores | Community-based setting | In-store food marketing (product, price, place, and promotion) | + Greater retailer power and control over the decisions (in comparison to manufacturers) | Not reported | Not reported | Low quality |
| Grech and Allman-Farinelli., 2015 [30] Systematic review N = 12 |
To determine the efficacy of nutrition interventions in vending machine in eliciting behavior change to improve diet quality | Vending machines | Worksites, universities, and school setting | Point-of-purchase promotion, nutrition policy, availability, pricing and behavioral programs | - Concerns around loss of profit due to price reductions or restrictions on availability of unhealthy choices | - Concerns around loss of profit due to price reductions or restrictions on availability of unhealthy choices | Not reported | Moderate quality |
| Henryks & Brimblecombe, 2016 [31] Narrative literature review N = not reported |
To identify and map key influencers of food choice at the point-of-purchase in Australian Remote Indigenous Communities and identify gaps in knowledge | Food stores | Remote Indigenous communities | Point-of-purchase influences | + Store managers’ attitudes and beliefs towards food - Low consumer demand + Policy with multiple strategies (income management in combination with the stores licensing programs) |
+ Policy with multiple strategies (income management in combination with the community stores licensing programs) | Not reported | Moderate quality |
| Hillier-Brown et al., 2017 [32] Systematic mapping evidence synthesis N = 75 |
To identify and describe interventions to promote healthier ready-to-eat meals sold by specific food outlets | Food outlets selling ready-to-eat meals i.e., cafes, restaurants, quick service restaurants | Community-based setting (excludes schools, workplaces, institutions) | Heterogeneous, including award/accreditation and non-award, generally related to product and promotion | + Project team’s skills, knowledge + Establishing relationships with staff and partnerships - Lack of time or interest + No profit loss |
- Low consumer demand | + No profit loss | Low quality |
| Hillier-Brown et al., 2017 [33] Systematic review N = 30 |
To systematically review the international literature on the impact of interventions to promote healthier ready-to-eat meals | Food service outlets | Community-based setting (excludes schools, workplaces, institutions) | Food reformulation, healthier offerings, accreditation scheme, price, labelling/information | + Establishing relationships | Not reported | Not reported | High quality |
| Houghtaling et al., 2019 [7] Systematic review N = 31 |
To identify factors that affect food storeowner and manager decision making and ability or willingness to apply marketing-mix and choice-architecture strategies to encourage healthy consumer food and beverage purchases among consumers | Food store includes grocery or supermarket | Urban community-based setting | Place, profile, portion, pricing, promotion, healthy defaults, priming or prompting, and proximity | - No retailer training + Increased consumer demand + Trust and partnerships between retailer-interventionist ± Food store layout/location - Incomplete control of retailers over the foods and beverages available in food stores - Outsourcing practices - Long working hours, managing work outside their job description, high employee turnover rate, difficult to generate revenue - Slim profit margins ± Local and federal policies |
- No retailer training + Increased consumer demand + Trust and partnerships between retailer-interventionist and consumers ± Food store layout/location ± Consumer service and consumer taste preference -Slim profit margins ± Local and federal policies |
- Slim profit margins ± Local and federal policies |
High quality |
| Hua & Ickovics, 2016 [34] Narrative literature review N = 10 |
To describe intervention designed to promote healthier vending purchases by consumers | Vending machines | Schools, universities, worksites, parks and buildings | Price, product availability, promotions/signage system, marketing, or education campaign | + Profit due to price reductions | + Profit made from price reductions | Not reported | Low quality |
| Kerins et al., 2020 [8] Mixed methods systematic review N = 17 |
To identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions from the perspective of the food service industry | Restaurants, food service corporations | Food service industry | Menu labelling format (numeric or interpretive), scheme (voluntary or mandatory) or type of food service business | ± Retailers’ knowledge and beliefs ± Consumer needs and preferences ± Stakeholder engagement - Food store structure - Reduced sales or profitability |
Not reported | - Reduced sales or profitability | High quality |
| Kraak et al., 2017 [35] Desk literature review N = 84 |
To evaluate restaurant-sector progress to create healthy food environments | Restaurants (chain and non-chain), includes quick-serve restaurants | Government, industry, non-governmental organizations, private foundations, academic institutions | Place, profile, portion, pricing, promotion, healthy default picks, prompting or and proximity | + Comprehensive food and beverage marketing policies | Not reported | Not reported | Low quality |
| Liberato et al., 2014 [36] Systematic review N = 32 |
To review the effectiveness of interventions at point-of-sale to encourage purchase and/or eating of healthier food to improve health outcomes | Grocery stores, supermarkets, vending | Point of sale in any community-based setting | Infrastructure, monetary incentives, marketing strategies (promotion and placement) | + No profit loss | Not reported | Not reported | High quality |
| Mah et al., 2019 [37] Systematic review N = 86 |
To update the evidence on the effectiveness of retail food environment interventions in influencing diet | Supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations | Community-based settings (except schools, workplace setting) | Changing the availability or the product, pricing, placement, or promotion | + Enabling policies or policy recommendations | Not reported | Not reported | Low quality |
| Marcano-Olivier et al., 2020 [38] Systematic review N = 25 |
To identify interventions using behavioral nudges to promote healthy food item choice or consumption | Cafeteria | School | Simple nudge-only interventions | ± Altering food store environment | +Low-cost staff | + Low intervention cost | High quality |
| Middel et al., 2019 [9] Systematic review N = 41 |
To identify barriers or facilitators to the implementation of healthy food-store interventions | Supermarket/food stores | Community/public setting | Any intervention that changes price, availability, promotion, or point-of-purchase information | - Lack of retailer’s knowledge - Perceived low relevance - Low consumer demand + Engagement and collaboration (between interventionist and retailer) + Co-creation of intervention - Food store structure - Conflict between commercial and intervention interests |
+ Engagement and collaboration (between interventionist and retailer) + Co-creation of intervention - Food store structure - Conflict between commercial interests and intervention interests - Lack of profitability |
- Food store structure - Conflict between commercial interests and intervention interests - Lack of profitability |
High quality |
| von Philipsborn et al., 2019 [39] Systematic review N = 58 |
To assess the effects of environmental interventions on the consumption of unhealthy food and health outcomes | Cafeterias, canteens, kiosks, restaurants, convenience/grocery stores, supermarkets, vending machines | Schools, hospitals, leisure centers, theme park, workplaces | Labelling, nutrition standards, pricing, availability and promotion, food benefits, home-based interventions | - Stakeholder discontent e.g., consumer complaints and perceptions of the store - Low consumer demand - Food store structure (physical and operational) |
- Food store structure (physical and operational) - Lack of profitability |
- Stakeholder discontent e.g., consumer complaints and perceptions of the store | High quality |
| Wilson et al., 2016 [40] Systematic review N = 13 |
To investigate nudging interventions, and their effectiveness for influencing healthier choices | Canteen, cafeteria, fast-food restaurant | Universities, hospitals, self-service buffets | Visibility, accessibility, availability, labels (traffic light, calorie, descriptive), downsize meals, taste-testing | Not reported | + No profit loss | + No profit loss | High quality |
+, factors classified as facilitators. -, factors classified as barriers. ±, factors classified as both barriers and facilitators. N = number of studies in reviews.