Evidence mapPaperPMID 40896367Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2025

Effect of restricted retail merchandising of discretionary food and beverages on population diet: post-trial follow-up of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Emma McMahon, Sarah Dickie, Khia De Silva, Megan Ferguson, Mark D Chatfield, Edward Miles, Anthony Gunther, Thomas Wycherley, Leia Minaker, Anna Peeters and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Emma McMahonMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Royal Darwin Hospital Campus, Building 58 Rocklands Drive, Tiwi, NT, 0810, Australia.
Sarah DickieDepartment of Nutrition Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Level 1 264 Ferntree Gully Rd, Notting Hill, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Khia De SilvaArnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation, 70 O'Sullivan Cct, East Arm, NT, 0828, Australia.
Megan FergusonSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Level 4, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia.
Mark D ChatfieldSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Level 4, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia.
Edward MilesCommunity First Development, 1/67 Townshend St, Phillip, ACT, 2606, Australia.
Anthony GuntherMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Royal Darwin Hospital Campus, Building 58 Rocklands Drive, Tiwi, NT, 0810, Australia.
Thomas WycherleyAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Leia MinakerSchool of Planning, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Anna PeetersInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Catherine L MahFaculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Emma ChappellSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Level 4, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia.
Julie BrimblecombeDepartment of Nutrition Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Level 1 264 Ferntree Gully Rd, Notting Hill, VIC, 3168, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Healthy Stores 2020 tested a co-designed strategy restricting retailer merchandising of unhealthy foods in a community-level pragmatic, partially randomised, parallel group trial in 20 remote Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community stores. We aimed to evaluate the impact of Healthy Stores 2020 on free sugar sales 24-weeks post-trial. Methods: Twenty stores were randomly assigned by a statistician using a single sequence of random assignments to the intervention group, in which a strategy restricted merchandising of unhealthy food (either six or seven strategy components), or to a control group of usual retail practice. The trial was done in partnership with an Indigenous organisation operating in remote Australia. In the post-trial period (24 weeks), immediately following the 25-week RCT, intervention stores (n = 10) continued the strategy but with no external implementation support, and control stores (n = 10) continued usual practice. The primary outcome was impact on purchases (weekly sales data) of free sugars from all foods and beverages (g/MJ) using mixed models. Secondary outcomes included total food and beverage dollars and gross profit (AUD$) and strategy implementation (number of strategies with full implementation assessed via photographic data collected). Trial registration, ACTRN12618001588280. Findings: We observed a difference in sales of total free sugars to energy between the treatment and control groups post-trial (-4.6%, 95% CI -7.1, -1.9). Between group differences in total food and beverage and gross profit dollars were 7.0% (0.9, 13.5) and 11.4% (4.6, 18.6), respectively. Two intervention stores had full implementation of all strategy components and eight intervention stores had compliance with at least four of the seven strategy components at post-trial end. Interpretation: A health-enabling retail intervention showed an effect on sugar reduction in the post-trial period without adversely impacting profit. Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Indexed as

Food environmentFood retailIndigenous healthMerchandising interventionNutritionRemote stores

Identifiers

PMID40896367
PMCPMC12398775

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.