Evidence mapPaperPMID 41459057Full record

ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2025

Health economics evidence for food system policy: a systematic review of reviews.

Lin Fu, Irina Pokhilenko, Thijs van Rens, Richard Smith, Emma Frew

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 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. Review
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

5 authors.

Lin FuCentre for Economics of Obesity, School of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Irina PokhilenkoCentre for Economics of Obesity, School of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Thijs van RensDepartment of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Richard SmithDepartment of Public Health and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Emma FrewCentre for Economics of Obesity, School of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Food system interventions are needed for improving public health and to address health inequalities. Economics evidence enables an understanding of the costs associated with these interventions when offset against the gains to society. Here, we define economic analysis as studies of the effect of an intervention on prices, profits or balance sheets. By mapping this evidence, we gain an understanding of whether interventions target the production (supply-side) or consumption (demand-side) aspects of the system. This is helpful for identifying which "cluster" of policies have been more readily investigated in the academic literature, what the evidence says, and where there are gaps in evidence. The aims of this review were to synthesise the economics evidence on food system interventions designed to improve population health, to identify the most studied areas of the system, the economics methods used, and any trends in methodological choices based on the type of intervention. A search strategy to identify reviews published between 2012 and 2024 was applied to seven databases. The focus was on the whole population in high-income countries. Thirty-six reviews were identified covering 718 primary studies. There were 21 reviews focused on demand-side interventions, such as taxes and subsidies on sugar-sweetened beverages or foods high in salt, sugar and fat, and only four reviews that looked at solely supply-side interventions. Eleven reviews were on a mix of both demand and supply side interventions. We found that supply side (e.g., reformulation) interventions were more effective at altering dietary behaviours when compared to demand side interventions (e.g., labelling). Supply-side evaluations tended to use ex-ante methods for hypothetical interventions, while demand side evaluations used a mix of both ex-ante and ex-post designs. Synthesising the cost-effectiveness of the interventions across the reviews was challenging due to heterogeneity of methods applied. Due to the wide range of agents and sectors involved, a cost-benefit analysis from a societal perspective is the most recommended economic evaluation method. Further studies are needed to identify the most efficient mix of intervention components likely to achieve substantial health and economic impacts. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42022360714.

Indexed as

cost-effectivenesscostseconomicsfood-systemhealth

Identifiers

PMID41459057
PMCPMC12742207

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.