Effect of restricted retail merchandising of discretionary food and beverages on population diet: post-trial follow-up of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Healthy Stores 2020 tested a co-designed strategy restricting retailer merchandising of unhealthy foods in a community-level pragmatic, partially randomised, parallel group trial in 20 remote Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community stores. We aimed to evaluate the impact of Healthy Stores 2020 on free sugar sales 24-weeks post-trial. Methods: Twenty stores were randomly assigned by a statistician using a single sequence of random assignments to the intervention group, in which a strategy restricted merchandising of unhealthy food (either six or seven strategy components), or to a control group of usual retail practice. The trial was done in partnership with an Indigenous organisation operating in remote Australia. In the post-trial period (24 weeks), immediately following the 25-week RCT, intervention stores (n = 10) continued the strategy but with no external implementation support, and control stores (n = 10) continued usual practice. The primary outcome was impact on purchases (weekly sales data) of free sugars from all foods and beverages (g/MJ) using mixed models. Secondary outcomes included total food and beverage dollars and gross profit (AUD$) and strategy implementation (number of strategies with full implementation assessed via photographic data collected). Trial registration, ACTRN12618001588280. Findings: We observed a difference in sales of total free sugars to energy between the treatment and control groups post-trial (-4.6%, 95% CI -7.1, -1.9). Between group differences in total food and beverage and gross profit dollars were 7.0% (0.9, 13.5) and 11.4% (4.6, 18.6), respectively. Two intervention stores had full implementation of all strategy components and eight intervention stores had compliance with at least four of the seven strategy components at post-trial end. Interpretation: A health-enabling retail intervention showed an effect on sugar reduction in the post-trial period without adversely impacting profit. Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".