Ruopeng An1. 1. RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, PO Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407, USA. ran@rand.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence from field interventions on the effectiveness of monetary subsidies in promoting healthier food purchases and consumption. DESIGN: Keyword and reference searches were conducted in five electronic databases: Cochrane Library, EconLit, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Studies were included based on the following criteria: (i) intervention: field experiments; (ii) population: adolescents 12–17 years old or adults 18 years and older; (iii) design: randomized controlled trials, cohort studies or pre–post studies; (iv) subsidy: price discounts or vouchers for healthier foods; (v) outcome: food purchases or consumption; (vi) period: 1990–2012; and (vii) language: English. Twenty-four articles on twenty distinct experiments were included with study quality assessed using predefined methodological criteria. SETTING: Interventions were conducted in seven countries: the USA (n 14), Canada (n 1), France (n 1), Germany (n 1), Netherlands (n 1), South Africa (n 1) and the UK (n 1). Subsidies applied to different types of foods such as fruits, vegetables and low-fat snacks sold in supermarkets, cafeterias, vending machines, farmers’ markets or restaurants. SUBJECTS: Interventions enrolled various population subgroups such as school/ university students, metropolitan transit workers and low-income women. RESULTS: All but one study found subsidies on healthier foods to significantly increase the purchase and consumption of promoted products. Study limitations include small and convenience samples, short intervention and follow-up duration, and lack of cost-effectiveness and overall diet assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Subsidizing healthier foods tends to be effective in modifying dietary behaviour. Future studies should examine its long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at the population level and its impact on overall diet intake.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence from field interventions on the effectiveness of monetary subsidies in promoting healthier food purchases and consumption. DESIGN: Keyword and reference searches were conducted in five electronic databases: Cochrane Library, EconLit, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Studies were included based on the following criteria: (i) intervention: field experiments; (ii) population: adolescents 12–17 years old or adults 18 years and older; (iii) design: randomized controlled trials, cohort studies or pre–post studies; (iv) subsidy: price discounts or vouchers for healthier foods; (v) outcome: food purchases or consumption; (vi) period: 1990–2012; and (vii) language: English. Twenty-four articles on twenty distinct experiments were included with study quality assessed using predefined methodological criteria. SETTING: Interventions were conducted in seven countries: the USA (n 14), Canada (n 1), France (n 1), Germany (n 1), Netherlands (n 1), South Africa (n 1) and the UK (n 1). Subsidies applied to different types of foods such as fruits, vegetables and low-fat snacks sold in supermarkets, cafeterias, vending machines, farmers’ markets or restaurants. SUBJECTS: Interventions enrolled various population subgroups such as school/ university students, metropolitan transit workers and low-income women. RESULTS: All but one study found subsidies on healthier foods to significantly increase the purchase and consumption of promoted products. Study limitations include small and convenience samples, short intervention and follow-up duration, and lack of cost-effectiveness and overall diet assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Subsidizing healthier foods tends to be effective in modifying dietary behaviour. Future studies should examine its long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at the population level and its impact on overall diet intake.
Authors: Leonard H Epstein; Elizabeth A Handley; Kelly K Dearing; David D Cho; James N Roemmich; Rocco A Paluch; Samina Raja; Youngju Pak; Bonnie Spring Journal: Psychol Sci Date: 2006-01
Authors: Tony Blakely; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Yannan Jiang; Leonie Matoe; Mafi Funaki-Tahifote; Helen C Eyles; Rachel H Foster; Sarah McKenzie; Anthony Rodgers Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Michael R Lowe; Karyn A Tappe; Meghan L Butryn; Rachel A Annunziato; Maria C Coletta; Christopher N Ochner; Barbara J Rolls Journal: Eat Behav Date: 2010-01-15
Authors: R Pérez-Escamilla; A M Ferris; L Drake; L Haldeman; J Peranick; M Campbell; Y K Peng; G Burke; B Bernstein Journal: J Nutr Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Bradley M Appelhans; Christy C Tangney; Simone A French; Melissa M Crane; Yamin Wang Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Donglan Zhang; Philippe J Giabbanelli; Onyebuchi A Arah; Frederick J Zimmerman Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Michele Polacsek; Alyssa Moran; Anne N Thorndike; Rebecca Boulos; Rebecca L Franckle; Julie C Greene; Dan J Blue; Jason P Block; Eric B Rimm Journal: J Nutr Educ Behav Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Jennifer N Aiyer; Margaret Raber; Rosalind S Bello; Anna Brewster; Elizabeth Caballero; Catherine Chennisi; Casey Durand; Marcita Galindez; Katherine Oestman; Maryiam Saifuddin; Jennifer Tektiridis; Reginald Young; Shreela V Sharma Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.046