Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41366445›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

Digital marketing techniques within online food retail platforms: a scoping review.

Adyya Gupta, Catherine E Huggins, Sara Salahshoornezhad, Rebecca Bennett, Kathryn Backholer, Anna Peeters

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Rethinking public health in the digital food era.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026
    Article
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

6 authors.

Adyya GuptaFaculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. adyya.gupta@deakin.edu.au.
Catherine E HugginsFaculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Sara SalahshoornezhadFaculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Rebecca BennettFaculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Kathryn BackholerFaculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Anna PeetersFaculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.

Funding

VicHealth Early Career Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

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

CommerceConsumer BehaviorFoodInternetMarketingFood PreferencesHumansDigital marketing techniquesOnline food deliveryOnline food retailOnline grocery servicesReview

Identifiers

PMID41366445
PMCPMC12801864

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.