Huong Ngoc Quynh Tran1,2, Emma McMahon3, Marj Moodie1,2, Jaithri Ananthapavan1,2. 1. Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, VIC 3217, Australia. 2. Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, VIC 3217, Australia. 3. Wellbeing and Preventable Chronic Disease Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, NT 0811, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the number of retail interventions with impacts on diet- and/or health-related outcomes is increasing, the economic evaluation literature is limited. This review investigated (i) the cost-effectiveness of health-promoting food retail interventions and (ii) key assumptions adopted in these evaluations. METHODS: A systematic review of published academic studies was undertaken (CRD42020153763). Fourteen databases were searched. Eligible studies were identified, analysed, and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Eight studies that evaluated 30 retail interventions were included in the review. Common outcomes reported were cost per healthy food item purchased/served or cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Four studies undertook cost-utility analyses and half of these studies concluded that retail interventions were cost-effective in improving health outcomes. Most studies did not state any assumptions regarding compensatory behaviour (i.e., purchases/consumption of non-intervention foods or food purchases/consumption from non-intervention settings) and presumed that sales data were indicative of consumption. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of retail-based health-promoting interventions is inconclusive. Future health-promoting retail interventions should regularly include an economic evaluation which addresses key assumptions related to compensatory behaviour and the use of sales data as a proxy for consumption.
BACKGROUND: While the number of retail interventions with impacts on diet- and/or health-related outcomes is increasing, the economic evaluation literature is limited. This review investigated (i) the cost-effectiveness of health-promoting food retail interventions and (ii) key assumptions adopted in these evaluations. METHODS: A systematic review of published academic studies was undertaken (CRD42020153763). Fourteen databases were searched. Eligible studies were identified, analysed, and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Eight studies that evaluated 30 retail interventions were included in the review. Common outcomes reported were cost per healthy food item purchased/served or cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Four studies undertook cost-utility analyses and half of these studies concluded that retail interventions were cost-effective in improving health outcomes. Most studies did not state any assumptions regarding compensatory behaviour (i.e., purchases/consumption of non-intervention foods or food purchases/consumption from non-intervention settings) and presumed that sales data were indicative of consumption. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of retail-based health-promoting interventions is inconclusive. Future health-promoting retail interventions should regularly include an economic evaluation which addresses key assumptions related to compensatory behaviour and the use of sales data as a proxy for consumption.
Authors: Steven L Gortmaker; Y Claire Wang; Michael W Long; Catherine M Giles; Zachary J Ward; Jessica L Barrett; Erica L Kenney; Kendrin R Sonneville; Amna Sadaf Afzal; Stephen C Resch; Angie L Cradock Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Catherine Paquet; Neil T Coffee; Matthew T Haren; Natasha J Howard; Robert J Adams; Anne W Taylor; Mark Daniel Journal: Health Place Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Kylie Ball; Sarah A McNaughton; Ha Nd Le; Gavin Abbott; Lena D Stephens; David A Crawford Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ha N D Le; Lisa Gold; Gavin Abbott; David Crawford; Sarah A McNaughton; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Christina Pollard; Kylie Ball Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2016-04-16 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Boyd A Swinburn; Gary Sacks; Kevin D Hall; Klim McPherson; Diane T Finegood; Marjory L Moodie; Steven L Gortmaker Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-08-27 Impact factor: 79.321