» Articles » PMID: 35324903

Removing Seasonal Confectionery from Prominent Store Locations and Purchasing Behaviour Within a Major UK Supermarket: Evaluation of a Nonrandomised Controlled Intervention Study

Overview
Journal PLoS Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2022 Mar 24
PMID 35324903
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The proportion of energy from free sugars and saturated fat currently exceeds the UK-recommended intake across all age groups. Recognising the limits of reformulation programmes, the government in England has announced their intention to introduce legislation to restrict the promotion of foods high in free sugars, salt, and saturated fats in prominent store locations. Here, we evaluated a grocery store intervention to remove seasonal confectionery from prominent locations within a major UK supermarket.

Methods And Findings: A nonrandomised controlled intervention study with interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was used. Data were analysed from 34 intervention stores located in 2 London boroughs and 151 matched control stores located elsewhere in the UK owned by the same retailer. Stores were matched based on store size and overall sales during the previous year. Between 15 February 2019 and 3 April 2019 (before Easter), stores removed free-standing promotional display units of seasonal confectionery from prominent areas, although these products were available for purchase elsewhere in the store. Store-level weekly sales (units, weight (g), and value (£)) of seasonal chocolate confectionery products were used in primary analyses, with data from 1 January 2018 to 24 November 2019. Secondary outcomes included total energy, fat, saturated fat, and sugars from all in-store purchases. Multivariable hierarchical models were used to investigate pre/post differences in weekly sales of confectionery in intervention versus control stores. ITS analyses were used to evaluate differences in level and trends after intervention implementation. Over a preintervention baseline period (15 February 2018 to 3 April 2018), there were no significant differences in sales (units, weight, and value) of all chocolate confectionery between intervention versus control stores. After intervention implementation, there was an attenuation in the seasonal increase of confectionery sales (units) in intervention stores compared to control (+5% versus +18%; P < 0.001), with similar effects on weight (g) (+12% versus +31%; P < 0.001) and value (£) (-3% versus +10%; P < 0.001). ITS analyses generally showed statistically significant differences in the level at the point of intervention (P ranges 0.010 to 0.067) but also in the trend afterwards (P ranges 0.024 to 0.053), indicating that the initial difference between intervention and control stores reduced over time. There was a significant difference in level change in total energy sold, adjusted for the total weight of food and drink (kcal/g, P = 0.002), and total fat (fat/g) (P = 0.023), but no significant changes in saturated fat or sugars from total sales in ITS models. There was no evidence that the main results varied across store deprivation index. The limitations of this study include the lack of randomisation, residual confounding from unmeasured variables, absolute differences in trends and sales between intervention versus control stores, and no independent measures of intervention fidelity.

Conclusions: Removal of chocolate confectionery from prominent locations was associated with reduced purchases of these products, of sufficient magnitude to observe a reduction in the energy content of total food purchases. These results from a "real-world" intervention provide promising evidence that the proposed legislation in England to restrict promotions of less healthy items in prominent locations may help reduce overconsumption.

Trial Registration: https://osf.io/br96f/.

Citing Articles

What does it take for healthy food retail programmes to be successful? Lessons learned in New York City.

Setiono F, Heller S, Leak T Public Health Nutr. 2024; 27(1):e188.

PMID: 39360456 PMC: 11505404. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980024001368.


Do promotions of healthier or more sustainable foods increase sales? Findings from three natural experiments in UK supermarkets.

Luick M, Bandy L, Piernas C, Jebb S, Pechey R BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):1658.

PMID: 38907224 PMC: 11191299. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19080-x.


Supermarket interventions to improve dietary and lifestyle behaviours: what is the key to success?.

Piernas C BMC Med. 2024; 22(1):87.

PMID: 38413958 PMC: 10897988. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03306-1.


Effects of in-store marketing on food and beverage purchases: a longitudinal study of households with children.

Grummon A, Petimar J, Moran A, Anderson E, Lurie P, John S Public Health Nutr. 2023; 27(1):e4.

PMID: 38037704 PMC: 10830370. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980023002641.


The impact of altering restaurant and menu option position on food selected from an experimental food delivery platform: a randomised controlled trial.

Bianchi F, Luick M, Bandy L, Bone J, Kelly S, Farrington J Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023; 20(1):60.

PMID: 37208720 PMC: 10197857. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-023-01456-8.


References
1.
Pechey R, Jebb S, Kelly M, Almiron-Roig E, Conde S, Nakamura R . Socioeconomic differences in purchases of more vs. less healthy foods and beverages: analysis of over 25,000 British households in 2010. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 92:22-6. PMC: 3726935. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.012. View

2.
Smith Taillie L, Grummon A, Fleischhacker S, Grigsby-Toussaint D, Leone L, Caspi C . Best practices for using natural experiments to evaluate retail food and beverage policies and interventions. Nutr Rev. 2017; 75(12):971-989. PMC: 6280926. DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nux051. View

3.
He F, Pombo-Rodrigues S, MacGregor G . Salt reduction in England from 2003 to 2011: its relationship to blood pressure, stroke and ischaemic heart disease mortality. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(4):e004549. PMC: 3987732. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004549. View

4.
Lake A, Burgoine T, Greenhalgh F, Stamp E, Tyrrell R . The foodscape: classification and field validation of secondary data sources. Health Place. 2010; 16(4):666-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.02.004. View

5.
Story G, Vlaev I, Seymour B, Darzi A, Dolan R . Does temporal discounting explain unhealthy behavior? A systematic review and reinforcement learning perspective. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014; 8:76. PMC: 3950931. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00076. View