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
. 2022 Apr;24(4):215-233.
doi: 10.1007/s11883-022-01004-y. Epub 2022 Feb 9.

Evidence Gaps in Assessments of the Healthiness of Online Supermarkets Highlight the Need for New Monitoring Tools: a Systematic Review

Damian Maganja  1 , Mia Miller  2 , Kathy Trieu  2 , Tailane Scapin  3 , Adrian Cameron  3 , Jason H Y Wu  2
Affiliations

Evidence Gaps in Assessments of the Healthiness of Online Supermarkets Highlight the Need for New Monitoring Tools: a Systematic Review

Damian Maganja et al. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2022 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose of review: Online grocery shopping is increasingly popular, but the extent to which these food environments encourage healthy or unhealthy purchases is unclear. This review identifies studies assessing the healthiness of real-world online supermarkets and frameworks to support future efforts.

Recent findings: A total of 18 studies were included and 17 assessed aspects of online supermarkets. Pricing and promotional strategies were commonly applied to unhealthy products, while nutrition labelling may not meet regulated requirements or support consumer decision-making. Few studies investigated the different and specific ways online supermarkets can influence consumers. One framework for comprehensively capturing the healthiness of online supermarkets was identified, particularly highlighting the various ways retailers can tailor the environment to target individuals. Comprehensive assessments of online supermarkets can identify the potential to support or undermine healthy choices and dietary patterns. Common, validated instruments to facilitate consistent analysis and comparison are needed, particularly to investigate the new opportunities the online setting offers to influence consumers.

Keywords: Consumer purchasing behaviour; Digital environments; Food environment; Food marketing; Food retail; Online supermarkets.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Roth GA, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990–2019: update from the GBD 2019 study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(25):2982–3021. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.010. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, GBD compare. 2021, IHME, University of Washington: Seattle, WA.
    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. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ni Mhurchu C, et al. Monitoring the availability of healthy and unhealthy foods and non-alcoholic beverages in community and consumer retail food environments globally. Obes Rev. 2013;14(Suppl 1):108–119. doi: 10.1111/obr.12080. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anand SS, et al. Food consumption and its impact on cardiovascular disease: importance of solutions focused on the globalized food system: a report from the workshop convened by the World Heart Federation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(14):1590–1614. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.07.050. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types