Christina Vogel1,2, Sarah Crozier1, Daniel Penn-Newman1, Kylie Ball3, Graham Moon4, Joanne Lord5, Cyrus Cooper1,2, Janis Baird1,2. 1. Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom. 2. NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. 3. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. 4. School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. 5. Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous product placement trials in supermarkets are limited in scope and outcome data collected. This study assessed the effects on store-level sales, household-level purchasing, and dietary behaviours of a healthier supermarket layout. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is a prospective matched controlled cluster trial with 2 intervention components: (i) new fresh fruit and vegetable sections near store entrances (replacing smaller displays at the back) and frozen vegetables repositioned to the entrance aisle, plus (ii) the removal of confectionery from checkouts and aisle ends opposite. In this pilot study, the intervention was implemented for 6 months in 3 discount supermarkets in England. Three control stores were matched on store sales and customer profiles and neighbourhood deprivation. Women customers aged 18 to 45 years, with loyalty cards, were assigned to the intervention (n = 62) or control group (n = 88) of their primary store. The trial registration number is NCT03518151. Interrupted time series analysis showed that increases in store-level sales of fruits and vegetables were greater in intervention stores than predicted at 3 (1.71 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI 0.45, 2.96), P = 0.01) and 6 months follow-up (2.42 SDs (0.22, 4.62), P = 0.03), equivalent to approximately 6,170 and approximately 9,820 extra portions per store, per week, respectively. The proportion of purchasing fruits and vegetables per week rose among intervention participants at 3 and 6 months compared to control participants (0.2% versus -3.0%, P = 0.22; 1.7% versus -3.5%, P = 0.05, respectively). Store sales of confectionery were lower in intervention stores than predicted at 3 (-1.05 SDs (-1.98, -0.12), P = 0.03) and 6 months (-1.37 SDs (-2.95, 0.22), P = 0.09), equivalent to approximately 1,359 and approximately 1,575 fewer portions per store, per week, respectively; no differences were observed for confectionery purchasing. Changes in dietary variables were predominantly in the expected direction for health benefit. Intervention implementation was not within control of the research team, and stores could not be randomised. It is a pilot study, and, therefore, not powered to detect an effect. CONCLUSIONS: Healthier supermarket layouts can improve the nutrition profile of store sales and likely improve household purchasing and dietary quality. Placing fruits and vegetables near store entrances should be considered alongside policies to limit prominent placement of unhealthy foods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03518151 (pre-results).
BACKGROUND: Previous product placement trials in supermarkets are limited in scope and outcome data collected. This study assessed the effects on store-level sales, household-level purchasing, and dietary behaviours of a healthier supermarket layout. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is a prospective matched controlled cluster trial with 2 intervention components: (i) new fresh fruit and vegetable sections near store entrances (replacing smaller displays at the back) and frozen vegetables repositioned to the entrance aisle, plus (ii) the removal of confectionery from checkouts and aisle ends opposite. In this pilot study, the intervention was implemented for 6 months in 3 discount supermarkets in England. Three control stores were matched on store sales and customer profiles and neighbourhood deprivation. Women customers aged 18 to 45 years, with loyalty cards, were assigned to the intervention (n = 62) or control group (n = 88) of their primary store. The trial registration number is NCT03518151. Interrupted time series analysis showed that increases in store-level sales of fruits and vegetables were greater in intervention stores than predicted at 3 (1.71 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI 0.45, 2.96), P = 0.01) and 6 months follow-up (2.42 SDs (0.22, 4.62), P = 0.03), equivalent to approximately 6,170 and approximately 9,820 extra portions per store, per week, respectively. The proportion of purchasing fruits and vegetables per week rose among intervention participants at 3 and 6 months compared to control participants (0.2% versus -3.0%, P = 0.22; 1.7% versus -3.5%, P = 0.05, respectively). Store sales of confectionery were lower in intervention stores than predicted at 3 (-1.05 SDs (-1.98, -0.12), P = 0.03) and 6 months (-1.37 SDs (-2.95, 0.22), P = 0.09), equivalent to approximately 1,359 and approximately 1,575 fewer portions per store, per week, respectively; no differences were observed for confectionery purchasing. Changes in dietary variables were predominantly in the expected direction for health benefit. Intervention implementation was not within control of the research team, and stores could not be randomised. It is a pilot study, and, therefore, not powered to detect an effect. CONCLUSIONS: Healthier supermarket layouts can improve the nutrition profile of store sales and likely improve household purchasing and dietary quality. Placing fruits and vegetables near store entrances should be considered alongside policies to limit prominent placement of unhealthy foods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03518151 (pre-results).
Authors: Anne N Thorndike; Oliver-John M Bright; Melissa A Dimond; Ronald Fishman; Douglas E Levy Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Stephanie L Albert; Brent A Langellier; Mienah Z Sharif; Alec M Chan-Golston; Michael L Prelip; Rosa Elena Garcia; Deborah C Glik; Thomas R Belin; Ron Brookmeyer; Alexander N Ortega Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Lise L Winkler; Ulla Christensen; Charlotte Glümer; Paul Bloch; Bent E Mikkelsen; Brian Wansink; Ulla Toft Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Bradley M Appelhans; Simone A French; Christy C Tangney; Lisa M Powell; Yamin Wang Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Frederick K Ho; Carlos A Celis-Morales; Stuart R Gray; S Vittal Katikireddi; Claire L Niedzwiedz; Claire Hastie; Lyn D Ferguson; Colin Berry; Daniel F Mackay; Jason Mr Gill; Jill P Pell; Naveed Sattar; Paul Welsh Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Christina Vogel; Georgia Ntani; Hazel Inskip; Mary Barker; Steven Cummins; Cyrus Cooper; Graham Moon; Janis Baird Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 5.043