Evidence mapPaperPMID 39183272Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2024

Healthiness of food products promoted through placement strategies in Australian online supermarkets: a cross-sectional study.

Damian Maganja, Madeleine de Carle, Tazman Davies, Clara Gómez Donoso, Tailane Scapin, Adrian J Cameron, Jimmy C Y Louie, Mark D Huffman, Kathy Trieu, Jason H Y Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Damian MaganjaThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. dmaganja@georgeinstitute.org.au.ORCID 0000-0003-1245-3288
Madeleine de CarleSchool of Rural Medicine, Faulty of Medicine and Health, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.
Tazman DaviesThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Clara Gómez DonosoGlobal Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.
Tailane ScapinGlobal Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.
Adrian J CameronGlobal Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.
Jimmy C Y LouieThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Mark D HuffmanThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Kathy TrieuThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Jason H Y WuThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProminent product placement is a core promotional tactic in retail food environments. How this practice has been adapted for online supermarkets, and the extent to which it is applied to healthier and less healthy food products in this setting, is largely unknown. We aimed to investigate placement-type promotions of food products in Australian online supermarkets.

methodsWe developed a new method to assess placement promotions and applied it to the online stores of the two largest supermarket retailers in Australia. Each online store was audited across six 'locations' (input prior to data collection), including a randomly selected high socio-economic position area and low socio-economic position area from each of the three largest Australian cities. The names, page locations and type of placement strategy of promoted food products were captured, with product healthiness assessed using the Health Star Rating (HSR) nutrient profiling system. Descriptive statistics summarised the page locations of promoted products and the placement strategies used to promote them, and chi-squared tests applied to compare product healthiness by retailer and socio-economic position.

resultsWe recorded 12,152 food products promoted through placement strategies, 99% of which were eligible for a HSR. Overall, 44% of products promoted through placement strategies were unhealthy. Cross-promotions and recommendations was the most common strategy recorded overall (55.9% of all strategies), and advertisements and site content was the strategy most likely to promote unhealthy products (53.7% of products unhealthy). One retailer was more likely to promote unhealthy products (46% v 43%, p = 0.004) and unhealthy products were more likely to be promoted in more disadvantaged than less disadvantaged locations (45% vs 43%, p = 0.05), though the magnitudes of difference were small.

conclusionsA considerable number of unhealthy products are likely presented to online grocery shoppers in Australia. Public health policies targeting unhealthy food promotions may need to be updated, including with consideration of the different ways that products can be prominently displayed online, to avoid exacerbating risks of diet-related disease and health inequalities. Our novel methodology could be used for ongoing monitoring of online supermarkets in Australia and elsewhere to inform such policies.

Indexed as

Food MarketsAustraliaCommerceCross-Sectional StudiesFoodHealth PromotionHumansInternetFood environmentsOnline supermarketsProduct placementProduct promotions

Identifiers

PMID39183272
PMCPMC11345970

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.