SynthesisNutrition reviews2023
An umbrella review of the acceptability of fiscal and pricing policies to reduce diet-related noncommunicable disease.
Synthesis in Nutrition reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unraveling the nexus between fiscal policy uncertainty, environmental taxation, and life expectancy.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of a Validated Questionnaire to Assess Dietary Fiber Intake Among the Italian Population.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Acceptability patterns of hypothetic taxes on different types of foods in France.Public health nutrition · 2024Article
- Public acceptability of proposals to manage new takeaway food outlets near schools: cross-sectional analysis of the 2021 International Food Policy Study.Cities & health · 2024Article
- Framing health taxes: a scoping review.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Framing health taxes: learning from low- and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextPoor diet has been implicated in a range of noncommunicable diseases. Fiscal and pricing policies (FPs) may offer a means by which consumption of food and non-alcoholic beverages with links to such diseases can be influenced to improve public health.
objectiveTo examine the acceptability of FPs to reduce diet-related noncommunicable disease, based on systematic review evidence. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, SCI, SSCI, Web of Science, Scopus, EconLit, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and the Campbell Collaboration Library were searched for relevant studies published between January 1, 1990 and June 2021. DATA EXTRACTION: The studies included systematic reviews of diet-related FPs and: used real-world evidence; examined real or perceived barriers/facilitators; targeted the price of food or non-alcoholic beverages; and applied to entire populations within a jurisdiction. A total of 9996 unique relevant records were identified, which were augmented by a search of bibliographies and recommendations from an external expert advisory panel. Following screening, 4 systematic reviews remained. DATA ANALYSIS: Quality appraisal was conducted using the AMSTAR 2 tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, with outcomes grouped according to the WHO-INTEGRATE criteria. The findings indicated a paucity of high-quality systematic review evidence and limited public support for the use of FPs to change dietary habits. This lack of support was related to a number of factors that included: their perceived potential to be regressive; a lack of transparency, ie, there was mistrust around the use of revenues raised; a paucity of evidence around health benefits; the deliberate choice of rates that were lower than those considered necessary to affect diet; and concerns about the potential of such FPs to harm economic outcomes such as employment.
conclusionThe findings underscore the need for high-quality systematic review evidence on this topic, and the importance of responding to public concerns and putting in place mechanisms to address these when implementing FPs. This study was funded by Safefood [02A-2020]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021274454.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.