Systematic review on the use of cost-benefit analysis to evaluate food environment interventions.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Bisola Osifowora, Lin Fu, Raymond Oppong, Emma Frew
{"title":"Systematic review on the use of cost-benefit analysis to evaluate food environment interventions.","authors":"Bisola Osifowora, Lin Fu, Raymond Oppong, Emma Frew","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2559112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The global obesity epidemic is a complex issue influenced by various factors, including the food system and its environment. Increasingly, interventions targeting systemic changes in the food environment are being implemented to address obesity. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is gaining recognition as a valuable tool for evaluating these interventions, due to its ability to capture broader societal impacts beyond health outcomes. However, its application in this context remains poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, searching academic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, CRD). Study quality was assessed using the Making an Early Intervention Business Case checklist, designed to evaluate CBA studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 6508 references screened, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. The review identified common methodological approaches, summarized key findings, challenges and implications, and provided clear recommendations for improvement. The review also synthesized evidence to show that food environment interventions offer value for money with positive returns.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This first systematic review of CBAs in food environment interventions identified common methods, challenges, and areas for improvement. While CBA is a valuable tool for evaluating food environment interventions, more robust and standardized methodological approaches are needed to enhance its reliability and applicability.<b>Registration</b>: PROSPERO (CRD42024503615).</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12455489/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2559112","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The global obesity epidemic is a complex issue influenced by various factors, including the food system and its environment. Increasingly, interventions targeting systemic changes in the food environment are being implemented to address obesity. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is gaining recognition as a valuable tool for evaluating these interventions, due to its ability to capture broader societal impacts beyond health outcomes. However, its application in this context remains poorly understood.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, searching academic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, CRD). Study quality was assessed using the Making an Early Intervention Business Case checklist, designed to evaluate CBA studies.

Results: Of 6508 references screened, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. The review identified common methodological approaches, summarized key findings, challenges and implications, and provided clear recommendations for improvement. The review also synthesized evidence to show that food environment interventions offer value for money with positive returns.

Conclusion: This first systematic review of CBAs in food environment interventions identified common methods, challenges, and areas for improvement. While CBA is a valuable tool for evaluating food environment interventions, more robust and standardized methodological approaches are needed to enhance its reliability and applicability.Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42024503615).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

利用成本效益分析评价食品环境干预措施的系统综述。
导言:全球肥胖流行是一个复杂的问题,受多种因素的影响,包括食物系统及其环境。针对食品环境系统性变化的干预措施正在越来越多地得到实施,以解决肥胖问题。成本效益分析(CBA)作为评估这些干预措施的一种有价值的工具正在获得认可,因为它能够捕捉到健康结果以外的更广泛的社会影响。然而,它在这方面的应用仍然知之甚少。方法:根据PRISMA指南,检索学术数据库(MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, CRD)进行系统评价。研究质量通过制定早期干预商业案例检查表进行评估,该检查表旨在评估CBA研究。结果:在筛选的6508篇文献中,有28篇研究符合纳入标准。审查确定了共同的方法方法,总结了主要发现、挑战和影响,并提出了明确的改进建议。该综述还综合了证据,表明食品环境干预措施物有所值,并带来了正回报。结论:这是对食品环境干预中cba的首次系统回顾,确定了共同的方法、挑战和需要改进的领域。虽然CBA是评估食品环境干预措施的宝贵工具,但需要更稳健和标准化的方法方法来提高其可靠性和适用性。
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
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
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