Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 17;19(1):103.
doi: 10.1186/s12937-020-00623-y.

The effects of nudges on purchases, food choice, and energy intake or content of purchases in real-life food purchasing environments: a systematic review and evidence synthesis

Affiliations

The effects of nudges on purchases, food choice, and energy intake or content of purchases in real-life food purchasing environments: a systematic review and evidence synthesis

Marjolein C Harbers et al. Nutr J. .

Abstract

Background: Adults with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) are more likely to engage in unhealthy diets as compared to adults with high SEP. However, individual-level educational interventions aiming to improve food choices have shown limited effectiveness in adults with low SEP. Environmental-level interventions such as nudging strategies however, may be more likely to benefit low SEP groups. We aimed to review the evidence for the effectiveness of nudges as classified according to interventions in proximal physical micro-environments typology (TIPPME) to promote healthy purchases, food choice, or affecting energy intake or content of purchases, within real-life food purchasing environments. Second, we aimed to investigate the potentially moderating role of SEP.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO until 31 January 2018. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion when they i) complied with TIPPME intervention definitions; ii) studied actual purchases, food choice, or energy intake or content of purchases, iii) and were situated in real-life food purchasing environments. Risk of bias was assessed using a quality assessment tool and evidence was synthesized using harvest plots.

Results: From the 9210 references identified, 75 studies were included. Studies were generally of weak to moderate quality. The most frequently studied nudges were information (56%), mixed (24%), and position nudges (13%). Harvest plots showed modest tendencies towards beneficial effects on outcomes for information and position nudges. Less evidence was available for other TIPPME nudging interventions for which the harvest plots did not show compelling patterns. Only six studies evaluated the effects of nudges across levels of SEP (e.g., educational level, food security status, job type). Although there were some indications that nudges were more effective in low SEP groups, the limited amount of evidence and different proxies of SEP used warrant caution in the interpretation of findings.

Conclusions: Information and position nudges may contribute to improving population dietary behaviours. Evidence investigating the moderating role of SEP was limited, although some studies reported greater effects in low SEP subgroups. We conclude that more high-quality studies obtaining detailed data on participant's SEP are needed.

Registration: This systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO database ( CRD42018086983 ).

Keywords: Choice architecture; Nudging; Socioeconomic position; TIPPME.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart of study inclusion
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Harvest plot for information nudges using symbols
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Harvest plot for information nudges providing nutrition information
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Harvest plot for information nudges using signage
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Harvest plot for position nudges
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Harvest plot for mixed nudging interventions

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. GBD 2017 Diet Collaborators Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1958–1972. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30041-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Darmon N, Drewnowski A. Does social class predict diet quality? Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87(5):1107–1117. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1107. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McGill R, Anwar E, Orton L, Bromley H, Lloyd-Williams F, O'Flaherty M, et al. Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:457. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1781-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mechanic D. Disadvantage, inequality, and social policy. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21(2):48–59. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.48. - DOI - PubMed
    1. White M, Adams J, Heywood P. How and why do interventions that increase health overall widen inequalities within populations. In: Babones, editor. Social inequality and public health. Bristol: Policy Press; 2009. pp. 64–81.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources