A Systematic Review of Salt Reduction Initiatives Around the World: A Midterm Evaluation of Progress Towards the 2025 Global Non-Communicable Diseases Salt Reduction Target
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2013, the WHO recommended that all member states aim to reduce population salt intake by 30% by 2025. The year 2019 represents the midpoint, making it a critical time to assess countries' progress towards this target. This review aims to identify all national salt reduction initiatives around the world in 2019, and to quantify countries' progress in achieving the salt reduction target. Relevant data were identified through searches of peer-reviewed and gray literature, supplemented with responses from prefilled country questionnaires sent to known country leads of salt reduction or salt champions, WHO regional representatives, and international experts to request further information. Core characteristics of each country's strategy, including evaluations of program impact, were extracted and summarized. A total of 96 national salt reduction initiatives were identified, representing a 28% increase in the number reported in 2014. About 90% of the initiatives were multifaceted in approach, and 60% had a regulatory component. Approaches include interventions in settings (n= 74), food reformulation (n = 68), consumer education (n = 50), front-of-pack labeling (n = 48), and salt taxation (n = 5). Since 2014, there has been an increase in the number of countries implementing each of the approaches, except consumer education. Data on program impact were limited. There were 3 countries that reported a substantial decrease (>2 g/day), 9 that reported a moderate decrease (1-2 g/day), and 5 that reported a slight decrease (<1 g/day) in the mean salt intake over time, but none have yet met the targeted 30% relative reduction in salt intake from baseline. In summary, there has been an increase in the number of salt reduction initiatives around the world since 2014. More countries are now opting for structural or regulatory approaches. However, efforts must be urgently accelerated and replicated in other countries and more rigorous monitoring and evaluation of strategies is needed to achieve the salt reduction target.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".