Dataset Information

Price promotions on healthier compared with less healthy foods: a hierarchical regression analysis of the impact on sales and social patterning of responses to promotions in Great Britain.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is a growing concern, but limited evidence, that price promotions contribute to a poor diet and the social patterning of diet-related disease.

Objective

We examined the following questions: 1) Are less-healthy foods more likely to be promoted than healthier foods? 2) Are consumers more responsive to promotions on less-healthy products? 3) Are there socioeconomic differences in food purchases in response to price promotions?

Design

With the use of hierarchical regression, we analyzed data on purchases of 11,323 products within 135 food and beverage categories from 26,986 households in Great Britain during 2010. Major supermarkets operated the same price promotions in all branches. The number of stores that offered price promotions on each product for each week was used to measure the frequency of price promotions. We assessed the healthiness of each product by using a nutrient profiling (NP) model.

Results

A total of 6788 products (60%) were in healthier categories and 4535 products (40%) were in less-healthy categories. There was no significant gap in the frequency of promotion by the healthiness of products neither within nor between categories. However, after we controlled for the reference price, price discount rate, and brand-specific effects, the sales uplift arising from price promotions was larger in less-healthy than in healthier categories; a 1-SD point increase in the category mean NP score, implying the category becomes less healthy, was associated with an additional 7.7-percentage point increase in sales (from 27.3% to 35.0%; P < 0.01). The magnitude of the sales uplift from promotions was larger for higher-socioeconomic status (SES) groups than for lower ones (34.6% for the high-SES group, 28.1% for the middle-SES group, and 23.1% for the low-SES group). Finally, there was no significant SES gap in the absolute volume of purchases of less-healthy foods made on promotion.

Conclusion

Attempts to limit promotions on less-healthy foods could improve the population diet but would be unlikely to reduce health inequalities arising from poorer diets in low-socioeconomic groups.

SUBMITTER: Nakamura R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4381774 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Price promotions on healthier compared with less healthy foods: a hierarchical regression analysis of the impact on sales and social patterning of responses to promotions in Great Britain.

Nakamura Ryota R Suhrcke Marc M Jebb Susan A SA Pechey Rachel R Almiron-Roig Eva E Marteau Theresa M TM

The American journal of clinical nutrition 20150211 4

<h4>Background</h4>There is a growing concern, but limited evidence, that price promotions contribute to a poor diet and the social patterning of diet-related disease.<h4>Objective</h4>We examined the following questions: 1) Are less-healthy foods more likely to be promoted than healthier foods? 2) Are consumers more responsive to promotions on less-healthy products? 3) Are there socioeconomic differences in food purchases in response to price promotions?<h4>Design</h4>With the use of hierarchic ...[more]

PMID: 25833978

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPlacing food further away from people decreases likelihood of consumption ("Proximity Effect"). However, it is unclear how proximity affects consumption when both healthier and less healthy foods are available and cognitive resource for self-control is limited.AimsTo test the hypothesis that when both healthier (raisins) and less healthy (chocolate M&Ms) foods are available, placing less healthy food far, rather than near, increases the likelihood that healthier food is consumed.MethodsGeneral population participants (N = 248) were all put under cognitive load and randomised to one of four groups: 1. Raisins near (20 cm), M&Ms far (70 cm); 2. Both foods near; 3. M&Ms near, raisins far; 4. Both far.Primary outcomeproportions of participants consuming raisins and M&Ms, respectively.ResultsThe results did not support the primary hypothesis: when healthier and less healthy foods were both available, placing M&Ms far, rather than near, did not increase likelihood of consuming raisins (OR = 1.54, p = .432). Regardless of the M&Ms proximity, likelihood of consuming raisins was unaffected by the raisins' proximity (62.9%(near) vs. 56.5%(far) OR = 0.61, p = .211). Likelihood of consuming M&Ms non-significantly decreased when they were far and raisins were near, and when both foods were far (OR = 2.83, p = .057). Likelihood of consuming M&Ms was affected by M&Ms proximity, being higher when near (68.3%) than far (55.6%), OR = 0.39, p = .015. Indices of cognitive load impact (higher vs lower) were unrelated to consumption of either food.ConclusionsLikelihood of consuming a healthier food was unaffected by its proximity and that of a less healthy food. By contrast, likelihood of consuming a less healthy food was influenced by its proximity and possibly by that of a healthier food. These effects need replication in studies designed to detect smaller effect sizes.Trial registrationThis study was registered online with ISRCTN (ISRCTN11740813).

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess whether retail sales of non-prescription products can be used for syndromic surveillance and whether it can detect influenza activity at different spatial scales. A secondary objective was to assess whether changes in purchasing behaviour were related to public health advice or levels of media or public interest. SETTING:The UK. PARTICIPANTS:National and regional influenza case estimates and retail sales from a major British supermarket. OUTCOME MEASURES:Weekly, seasonally adjusted sales of over-the-counter symptom remedies and non-pharmaceutical products; recommended as part of the advice offered by public health agencies; were compared with weekly influenza case estimates. Comparisons were made at national and regional spatial resolutions. We also compared sales to national measures of contemporaneous media output and public interest (Internet search volume) related to the pandemic. RESULTS:At a national scale there was no significant correlation between retail sales of symptom remedies and cases for the whole pandemic period in 2009. At the regional scale, a minority of regions showed statistically significant positive correlations between cases and sales of adult 'cold and flu' remedies and cough remedies (3.2%, 5/156, 3.8%, 6/156), but a greater number of regions showed a significant positive correlation between cases and symptomatic remedies for children (35.6%, 55/156). Significant positive correlations between cases and sales of thermometers and antiviral hand gels/wash were seen at both spatial scales (Cor 0.477 (95% CI 0.171 to 0.699); 0.711 (95% CI 0.495 to 0.844)). We found no significant association between retail sales and media reporting or Internet search volume. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides evidence that the British public responded appropriately to health messaging about hygiene. Non-prescription retail sales at a national level are not useful for the detection of cases. However, at finer spatial scales, in particular age-groups, retail sales may help augment existing surveillance and merit further study.

Project description:ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prices of healthier versus less healthy foods/diet patterns while accounting for key sources of heterogeneity.Data sourcesMEDLINE (2000-2011), supplemented with expert consultations and hand reviews of reference lists and related citations.DesignStudies reviewed independently and in duplicate were included if reporting mean retail price of foods or diet patterns stratified by healthfulness. We extracted, in duplicate, mean prices and their uncertainties of healthier and less healthy foods/diet patterns and rated the intensity of health differences for each comparison (range 1-10). Prices were adjusted for inflation and the World Bank purchasing power parity, and standardised to the international dollar (defined as US$1) in 2011. Using random effects models, we quantified price differences of healthier versus less healthy options for specific food types, diet patterns and units of price (serving, day and calorie). Statistical heterogeneity was quantified using I(2) statistics.Results27 studies from 10 countries met the inclusion criteria. Among food groups, meats/protein had largest price differences: healthier options cost $0.29/serving (95% CI $0.19 to $0.40) and $0.47/200 kcal ($0.42 to $0.53) more than less healthy options. Price differences per serving for healthier versus less healthy foods were smaller among grains ($0.03), dairy (-$0.004), snacks/sweets ($0.12) and fats/oils ($0.02; p<0.05 each) and not significant for soda/juice ($0.11, p=0.64). Comparing extremes (top vs bottom quantile) of food-based diet patterns, healthier diets cost $1.48/day ($1.01 to $1.95) and $1.54/2000 kcal ($1.15 to $1.94) more. Comparing nutrient-based patterns, price per day was not significantly different (top vs bottom quantile: $0.04; p=0.916), whereas price per 2000 kcal was $1.56 ($0.61 to $2.51) more. Adjustment for intensity of differences in healthfulness yielded similar results.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis provides the best evidence until today of price differences of healthier vs less healthy foods/diet patterns, highlighting the challenges and opportunities for reducing financial barriers to healthy eating.

Dataset Information

Price promotions on healthier compared with less healthy foods: a hierarchical regression analysis of the impact on sales and social patterning of responses to promotions in Great Britain.

Background

Objective

Design

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Price promotions on healthier compared with less healthy foods: a hierarchical regression analysis of the impact on sales and social patterning of responses to promotions in Great Britain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets