Interventions to change purchasing behaviour in supermarkets: a systematic review and intervention content analysis

ABSTRACT

This systematic review and intervention content analysis used behavioural science frameworks to characterise content and function of interventions targeting supermarket shoppers’ purchasing behaviour, and explore if coherence between content and function was linked to intervention effectiveness. Study eligibility: in-store interventions (physical supermarkets) with control conditions, targeting objectively measured food and/or non-alcoholic drink purchases, published in English (no date restrictions). Eleven electronic databases were searched; reference lists of systematic reviews were hand-searched. Methodological quality was assessed using the GATE checklist. A content analysis was performed to characterise intervention content and function, and theoretical coherence between these, using the Behaviour Change Wheel, Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy, and Typology of Interventions in Proximal Physical Micro-Environments (TIPPME). Forty-six articles (49 interventions) met inclusion criteria; 26 articles (32 interventions) were included in the content analysis. Twenty behaviour change techniques (BCTs), and four TIPPME intervention types were identified; three BCTs (‘Prompts/cues’, ‘Material incentive’, and ‘Material reward’) were more common in effective interventions. Nineteen interventions solely employed theoretically appropriate BCTs. Theoretical coherence between BCTs and intervention functions was more common in effective interventions. Effective interventions included price promotions and/or in-store merchandising. Future research should explore the effect of specific BCTs using factorial study designs. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42017071065.

KEYWORDS:

• Behaviour change techniques
• behaviour change wheel
• supermarket interventions
• obesity
• food and drink purchases
• eating behaviour

Acknowledgements

The review team would especially like to thank four of our colleagues at Public Health England for their advice and assistance at different stages of the work. First, Caroline DeBrun, for her support in the development of the search strategy and for conducting some of the database searches. Second, Elizabeth Castle, for her feedback in refining the research question and suggestions for search terms. Third, Sarah Alamoudi, for her help with data extraction and assessment of studies for risk of bias. Fourth, Veronika Brlasova, for her help with additional data extractions during the peer review process. Finally, we would like to express our thanks to the anonymous reviewers for providing helpful feedback on our manuscript. The scope of the review and research question, as well as the search strategy was developed by SG, with assistance from TC. Searches, abstract screening, and full-text screening were conducted by SG. Study quality and bias assessments were conducted and interpreted by SA and SG. Data extraction was conducted by DR, SA, and VM. Coding against behavioural frameworks was conducted by CD, DR, LP, PB, SG, and VM. Interpretation of coding and data analysis was performed by AB, AS, LP, PB, SG, TC, and VM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by DR, PB, SG, and VM. All authors reviewed and contributed to subsequent drafts and the final manuscript, with revisions overseen and coordinated by PB and SG.

Disclosure statement

Some members of the review team (AB, LP, SG, TC) have liaised with major food retailers in the UK on other projects in the interests of the public’s health. This project was conceived of, designed, conducted, and written up independently of any of those relationships. Public Health England did not receive funding, advice, or advocacy from any food or drink retailer or manufacturer for this project.

Data availability

The raw data files for quality assessments and for coding according to the behavioural science frameworks are available as supplemental materials.

Additional information

Funding

This work was carried out as part of the usual business activities of Public Health England (PHE) and no external funding was utilised. SG’s placement at PHE was majority-funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) as part of the UKRI Policy Internships Scheme.