The Effectiveness of Partnerships With Commercial Actors to Improve Food Environments: A Systematic Review.

IF 8 2区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Obesity Reviews Pub Date : 2025-06-29 DOI:10.1111/obr.13952
Laurence Blanchard, Gemma Bridge, Julia Bidonde, Matt Egan, Harry Rutter, Mark Petticrew, Patricia J Lucas, Monique Potvin Kent, Claire Bennet, Stephanie Ray, Cherry Law, Cécile Knai
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Partnerships With Commercial Actors to Improve Food Environments: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Laurence Blanchard, Gemma Bridge, Julia Bidonde, Matt Egan, Harry Rutter, Mark Petticrew, Patricia J Lucas, Monique Potvin Kent, Claire Bennet, Stephanie Ray, Cherry Law, Cécile Knai","doi":"10.1111/obr.13952","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Partnerships with commercial actors have been proposed as a policy approach to create healthier food environments. We conducted a systematic review to assess their effectiveness for improving food environments and population health at state, national, or international levels. We searched in 14 databases and two websites for real-world evaluations published between 2010 and 2020. Study quality was appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized narratively by outcome (human, food environment, policy content, and implementation progress), considering their effect direction. Seventeen studies reporting on seven PPPs in four countries were included. Most studies (n = 14) involved food reformulation, especially salt reduction. Three focused on specific settings (the eating out-of-home sector, schools, and convenience stores). There was mixed evidence that partnerships make people buy fewer calories or more school meals (n = 3 studies) or reduce product sodium content (n = 6). Some positive effects were described in one uncontrolled study each for decreasing trans-fatty acid intake and for making healthier options more available in school cafeterias, but these studies had important limitations. Five document analyses highlighted shortcomings in the partnerships, including their limited scope, failure to add value to ongoing actions, varying participation levels, and lack of implementation, monitoring, and reporting. Alternative policy approaches should be considered. This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020170963.</p>","PeriodicalId":216,"journal":{"name":"Obesity Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"e13952"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obesity Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13952","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Partnerships with commercial actors have been proposed as a policy approach to create healthier food environments. We conducted a systematic review to assess their effectiveness for improving food environments and population health at state, national, or international levels. We searched in 14 databases and two websites for real-world evaluations published between 2010 and 2020. Study quality was appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized narratively by outcome (human, food environment, policy content, and implementation progress), considering their effect direction. Seventeen studies reporting on seven PPPs in four countries were included. Most studies (n = 14) involved food reformulation, especially salt reduction. Three focused on specific settings (the eating out-of-home sector, schools, and convenience stores). There was mixed evidence that partnerships make people buy fewer calories or more school meals (n = 3 studies) or reduce product sodium content (n = 6). Some positive effects were described in one uncontrolled study each for decreasing trans-fatty acid intake and for making healthier options more available in school cafeterias, but these studies had important limitations. Five document analyses highlighted shortcomings in the partnerships, including their limited scope, failure to add value to ongoing actions, varying participation levels, and lack of implementation, monitoring, and reporting. Alternative policy approaches should be considered. This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020170963.

与商业行为者合作改善食品环境的有效性:系统回顾。
与商业行为体建立伙伴关系已被提议作为一种政策办法,以创造更健康的食品环境。我们进行了一项系统回顾,以评估它们在州、国家或国际层面改善食品环境和人口健康方面的有效性。我们在14个数据库和两个网站上检索了2010年至2020年间发表的真实世界评估。采用改良的纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评价研究质量。根据结果(人、食物环境、政策内容和实施进度)综合数据,考虑其影响方向。报告了4个国家7个公私伙伴关系的17项研究。大多数研究(n = 14)涉及食品配方调整,特别是减少盐。其中三家专注于特定环境(外出就餐行业、学校和便利店)。有各种各样的证据表明,合作伙伴关系使人们购买更少的卡路里或更多的学校膳食(n = 3项研究)或减少产品的钠含量(n = 6)。一项非对照研究描述了减少反式脂肪酸摄入量和在学校食堂提供更健康的选择的一些积极影响,但这些研究有重要的局限性。五份文件分析强调了伙伴关系的不足之处,包括范围有限、未能为正在进行的行动增加价值、参与程度不一以及缺乏实施、监测和报告。应考虑其他政策办法。本系统评价在PROSPERO注册为CRD42020170963。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Obesity Reviews
Obesity Reviews 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
19.30
自引率
1.10%
发文量
130
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Obesity Reviews is a monthly journal publishing reviews on all disciplines related to obesity and its comorbidities. This includes basic and behavioral sciences, clinical treatment and outcomes, epidemiology, prevention and public health. The journal should, therefore, appeal to all professionals with an interest in obesity and its comorbidities. Review types may include systematic narrative reviews, quantitative meta-analyses and narrative reviews but all must offer new insights, critical or novel perspectives that will enhance the state of knowledge in the field. The editorial policy is to publish high quality peer-reviewed manuscripts that provide needed new insight into all aspects of obesity and its related comorbidities while minimizing the period between submission and publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信