IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0075070.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Instruments for Population Diet and Physical Activity Behaviour Change: A Systematic Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Ian Shemilt
  • Gareth J Hollands
  • Theresa M Marteau
  • Ryota Nakamura
  • Susan A Jebb
  • Michael P Kelly
  • Marc Suhrcke
  • David Ogilvie

Abstract

Background: Unhealthy diet and low levels of physical activity are common behavioural factors in the aetiology of many non-communicable diseases. Recent years have witnessed an upsurge of policy and research interest in the use of taxes and other economic instruments to improve population health. Objective: To assemble, configure and analyse empirical research studies available to inform the public health case for using economic instruments to promote dietary and physical activity behaviour change. Methods: We conducted a systematic scoping review of evidence for the effects of specific interventions to change, or general exposure to variations in, prices or income on dietary and physical activity behaviours and corollary outcomes. Systematic electronic searches and parallel snowball searches retrieved >1 million study records. Text mining technologies were used to prioritise title-abstract records for screening. Eligible studies were selected, classified and analysed in terms of key characteristics and principal findings, using a narrative, configuring synthesis focused on implications for policy and further research. Results: We identified 880 eligible studies, including 192 intervention studies and 768 studies that incorporated evidence for prices or income as correlates or determinants of target outcomes. Current evidence for the effects of economic instruments and exposures on diet and physical activity is limited in quality and equivocal in terms of its policy implications. Direct evidence for the effects of economic instruments is heavily skewed towards impacts on diet, with a relative lack of evidence for impacts on physical activity. Conclusions: The evidence-based case for using economic instruments to promote dietary and physical activity behaviour change may be less compelling than some proponents have claimed. Future research should include measurement of people’s actual behavioural responses using study designs capable of generating reliable causal inferences regarding intervention effects. Policy implementation needs to be carefully aligned with evaluation planning and design.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian Shemilt & Gareth J Hollands & Theresa M Marteau & Ryota Nakamura & Susan A Jebb & Michael P Kelly & Marc Suhrcke & David Ogilvie, 2013. "Economic Instruments for Population Diet and Physical Activity Behaviour Change: A Systematic Scoping Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-1, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0075070
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075070
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075070&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0075070?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer M. Mellor, 2011. "Do cigarette taxes affect children's body mass index? The effect of household environment on health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 417-431, April.
    2. Anonymous, 2013. "Introduction to the Issue," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 243-243, December.
    3. Chris Herbst & Erdal Tekin, 2011. "Child care subsidies and childhood obesity," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 349-378, September.
    4. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    5. Alessandro Liberati & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Cynthia Mulrow & Peter C Gøtzsche & John P A Ioannidis & Mike Clarke & P J Devereaux & Jos Kleijnen & David Moher, 2009. "The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-28, July.
    6. Anonymous, 2013. "Introduction to the Issue," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 129-130, November.
    7. Melayne M. McInnes & Judith A. Shinogle, 2011. "Physical Activity: Economic and Policy Factors," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Aspects of Obesity, pages 249-282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Von Tigerstrom, B. & Larre, T. & Sauder, J., 2011. "Using the tax system to promote physical activity: Critical analysis of canadian initiatives," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(8), pages 10-16.
    9. French, S.A. & Jeffery, R.W. & Story, M. & Breitlow, K.K. & Baxter, J.S. & Hannan, P. & Snyder, M.P., 2001. "Pricing and promotion effects on low-fat vending snack purchases: The CHIPS study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(1), pages 112-117.
    10. Simon Capewell & Hilary Graham, 2010. "Will Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Widen Health Inequalities?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-5, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maruyama, Shiko & Nakamura, Sayaka, 2018. "Why are women slimmer than men in developed countries?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-13.
    2. Daniel John Zizzo & Melanie Parravano & Ryota Nakamura & Suzanna Forwood & Marc Suhrcke, 2021. "The impact of taxation and signposting on diet: an online field study with breakfast cereals and soft drinks," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1294-1324, December.
    3. Victor, Vijay & Nair, Aparna M. & Meyer, Daniel Francois, 2023. "Nudges and choice architecture in public policy: A bibliometric analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sandra Acosta & Tiberio Garza & Hsien-Yuan Hsu & Patricia Goodson, 2020. "Assessing Quality in Systematic Literature Reviews: A Study of Novice Rater Training," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    2. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    3. Cristina Ortega-Rodríguez & Ana Licerán-Gutiérrez & Antonio Luis Moreno-Albarracín, 2020. "Transparency as a Key Element in Accountability in Non-Profit Organizations: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-22, July.
    4. Ranjana Raghunathan, 2022. "Everyday Intimacies and Inter-Ethnic Relationships: Tracing Entanglements of Gender and Race in Multicultural Singapore," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(1), pages 77-94, March.
    5. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    6. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.
    7. Tapsuwan, Sorada & Polyakov, Maksym & Bark, Rosalind & Nolan, Martin, 2015. "Valuing the Barmah–Millewa Forest and in stream river flows: A spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (SHAC) approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 98-105.
    8. Bertschek, Irene & Kesler, Reinhold, 2022. "Let the user speak: Is feedback on Facebook a source of firms’ innovation?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    9. Gigi Foster, 2020. "The behavioural economics of government responses to COVID-19," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S3), pages 11-43, December.
    10. Balint, T. & Lamperti, F. & Mandel, A. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2017. "Complexity and the Economics of Climate Change: A Survey and a Look Forward," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 252-265.
    11. Audoly, Richard & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Guivarch, Céline & Pfeiffer, Alexander, 2018. "Pathways toward zero-carbon electricity required for climate stabilization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 884-901.
    12. Gerards, Ruud & Welters, Ricardo, 2016. "Impact of financial pressure on unemployed job search, job find success and job quality," ROA Research Memorandum 008, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
    13. Vasile-Daniel Păvăloaia & Elena-Mădălina Teodor & Doina Fotache & Magdalena Danileţ, 2019. "Opinion Mining on Social Media Data: Sentiment Analysis of User Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-21, August.
    14. Cailong Xu & Ruidong Li & Wenwen Song & Tingting Wu & Shi Sun & Shuixiu Hu & Tianfu Han & Cunxiang Wu, 2021. "Responses of Branch Number and Yield Component of Soybean Cultivars Tested in Different Planting Densities," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    15. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    16. Caitlin Robinson & Stefan Bouzarovski & Sarah Lindley, 2018. "Underrepresenting neighbourhood vulnerabilities? The measurement of fuel poverty in England," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(5), pages 1109-1127, August.
    17. Michaela Haase & Emmanuel Raufflet, 2017. "Ideologies in Markets, Organizations, and Business Ethics: Drafting a Map: Introduction to the Special Issue," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(4), pages 629-639, June.
    18. Rafael Alcadipani & Cíntia Rodrigues Oliveira Medeiros, 2020. "When Corporations Cause Harm: A Critical View of Corporate Social Irresponsibility and Corporate Crimes," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 285-297, November.
    19. Mansoora Ahmed & Sun Zehou & Syed Ali Raza & Muhammad Asif Qureshi & Sara Qamar Yousufi, 2020. "Impact of CSR and environmental triggers on employee green behavior: The mediating effect of employee well‐being," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2225-2239, September.
    20. Licsandru, Tana Cristina & Cui, Charles Chi, 2018. "Subjective social inclusion: A conceptual critique for socially inclusive marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 330-339.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0075070. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.