ArticleBMC medicine2025
Digital marketing techniques within online food retail platforms: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rethinking public health in the digital food era.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing evidence that online food retail platforms (online food delivery, online grocery and meal kits) use a range of marketing techniques to promote unhealthy foods (energy-dense and nutrient-poor) to influence consumers' food choices and food purchases. However, existing literature on this topic is dispersed (across public health and marketing disciplines) and has not been synthesised from a public health perspective. The aim of this review was to synthesise the evidence on the digital marketing techniques prevalent on online food retail platforms, what food products they promote and their potential influence on consumers' online food purchase behaviours.
methodsA mix of health and business databases was searched for peer-reviewed papers published in the last ten years, to align with the time from when online food retail platforms grew in popularity. Included studies were mapped to a pre-defined list of digital marketing techniques, marketing mix strategies and across Cialdini's principles of persuasion. All findings were described narratively.
resultsA total of 3408 studies were screened, of which 16 studies were included in the review. Eleven studies examined online food delivery services, and five studies examined online grocery retail services. A range of well-established digital marketing techniques were identified, including algorithmic personalisation, push notifications, membership-based models, interactive tools such as sorting and filtering features, hyperlinks or prompts to create combo deals, site customisation offering personalised shopping experience, clickable banner advertisements and search engine optimisation. Whilst these are standard techniques in digital commerce, we found that they were often deployed to preferentially promote nutrient-poor foods. Specifically, seven studies highlighted the use of these marketing techniques to promote foods of poor nutritional quality, with marketing strategies reinforcing perceptions of value, tastiness and pleasure. Only two studies examined and reported a positive influence of using price promotion techniques on consumers' unhealthy food purchase intention.
conclusionsOnline food delivery and online grocery platforms use a range of digital marketing techniques to deliver content in highly persuasive ways, often promoting unhealthy food options. Future research should explore how these platforms can be leveraged to enable healthier population food choices and align with public health objectives.
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.