The role of nudges in food choices: An umbrella review

IF 4.9 1区农林科学 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Food Quality and Preference Pub Date : 2025-08-21 DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105679

Hui Lin , Marcia Dutra de Barcellos , Hans De Steur

{"title":"The role of nudges in food choices: An umbrella review","authors":"Hui Lin , Marcia Dutra de Barcellos , Hans De Steur","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Nudging, a behavioural intervention based on choice architecture, is increasingly used to promote healthier and more sustainable food choices. This umbrella review summarises evidence from systematic reviews to assess its effectiveness and identify research gaps. A systematic search of Web of Science and Scopus identified 36 systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2025. Most systematic reviews focused on health-related food nudges, with only three discussing nudges in the scope of promoting environmentally friendly food choices, highlighting a notable imbalance in the current literature. Reviews were evaluated using the updated version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2), which revealed that only one review was rated as high quality, 16 as moderate, 9 as low and 10 as critically low, indicating insufficient quality. Results were categorised using an extended Typology of interventions in proximal physical micro-environments (TIPPME) framework. Nudges showed small to moderate effects on food choice, with default and positional nudges being the most effective. Interventions where nudges were combined with other interventions, such as financial or educational strategies, were more promising than nudges alone, but more evidence is needed. Inconsistencies in the classification of nudges in different studies underline the need for standardisation. Future research should focus on the standardisation of nudge classifications, the evaluation of long-term effects and the exploration of integrated policy approaches.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":"134 ","pages":"Article 105679"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Quality and Preference","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095032932500254X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Nudging, a behavioural intervention based on choice architecture, is increasingly used to promote healthier and more sustainable food choices. This umbrella review summarises evidence from systematic reviews to assess its effectiveness and identify research gaps. A systematic search of Web of Science and Scopus identified 36 systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2025. Most systematic reviews focused on health-related food nudges, with only three discussing nudges in the scope of promoting environmentally friendly food choices, highlighting a notable imbalance in the current literature. Reviews were evaluated using the updated version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2), which revealed that only one review was rated as high quality, 16 as moderate, 9 as low and 10 as critically low, indicating insufficient quality. Results were categorised using an extended Typology of interventions in proximal physical micro-environments (TIPPME) framework. Nudges showed small to moderate effects on food choice, with default and positional nudges being the most effective. Interventions where nudges were combined with other interventions, such as financial or educational strategies, were more promising than nudges alone, but more evidence is needed. Inconsistencies in the classification of nudges in different studies underline the need for standardisation. Future research should focus on the standardisation of nudge classifications, the evaluation of long-term effects and the exploration of integrated policy approaches.

查看原文本刊更多论文

轻推在食物选择中的作用：概括性回顾

轻推是一种基于选择架构的行为干预，越来越多地用于促进更健康和更可持续的食物选择。本总括性综述总结了来自系统综述的证据，以评估其有效性并确定研究差距。对Web of Science和Scopus的系统搜索发现，2013年至2025年间发表了36篇系统评论。大多数系统评论都关注与健康相关的食品推动，只有三篇讨论了促进环境友好型食品选择范围内的推动，突出了当前文献中显着的不平衡。使用更新版本的评估系统评论的测量工具（AMSTAR 2）对评论进行评估，其中显示只有一个评论被评为高质量，16个为中等，9个为低，10个为极低，表明质量不足。使用近端物理微环境（TIPPME）框架中的干预扩展类型学对结果进行分类。轻推对食物选择的影响小到中等，默认轻推和位置轻推最有效。推动与其他干预相结合的干预措施，如财政或教育战略，比单独推动更有希望，但需要更多的证据。不同研究中轻推分类的不一致性强调了标准化的必要性。未来的研究应集中在推动分类的标准化、长期效果的评估和综合政策方法的探索上。

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

Food Quality and Preference 工程技术-食品科技

CiteScore

10.40

自引率

15.10%

发文量

263

审稿时长

38 days

期刊介绍： Food Quality and Preference is a journal devoted to sensory, consumer and behavioural research in food and non-food products. It publishes original research, critical reviews, and short communications in sensory and consumer science, and sensometrics. In addition, the journal publishes special invited issues on important timely topics and from relevant conferences. These are aimed at bridging the gap between research and application, bringing together authors and readers in consumer and market research, sensory science, sensometrics and sensory evaluation, nutrition and food choice, as well as food research, product development and sensory quality assurance. Submissions to Food Quality and Preference are limited to papers that include some form of human measurement; papers that are limited to physical/chemical measures or the routine application of sensory, consumer or econometric analysis will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution in line with the journal''s coverage as outlined below.