Sample size We specified the number of intervention venues, study participants, and/or sales records that was reported in each study, where relevant. When the recruited sample size and the analytic sample size differed, we considered the recruited sample as the final sample size. Study duration Study duration was specified by the authors. We calculated the total intervention duration, excluding baseline and follow–up assessment periods. Target population We described the characteristics of the group who received the program/intervention. Model/theory We included an underlying framework of each study that was used to develop its intervention components, if any was mentioned by the authors. Goal or purpose of the Study investigators generally provided an overall goal or purpose of the intervention. When one was not provided, we described the purpose based on our understanding of the study. Food/beverages that were the intervention’s focus We identified the specific foods or beverages that the study aimed to promote or de–promote. Food/beverage sources We specified intervention venues described by the authors. We also included the number of intervention venues if it was provided in the publication. Intervention strategies: pricing or cost We described the intervention strategies that target price in some fashion, including incentives (coupons, vouchers, discounts, rebates), and disincentives (price increase, taxes). Intervention strategies: changing availability of healthy and unhealthy foods We included any intervention component that increased or decreased the availability of healthy and unhealthy foods.
Baltimore Healthy Carryouts (10–17) +++ In–depth interviews, focus groups, conjoint analysis, Ground–truthing, direct observation. Intervention materials designed with feedback from the community + (Acceptability) +++ (Reach, dose received, fidelity) High acceptability, especially the new menu boards shown to be feasible. Moderate to high dose received, high fidelity and reach B’More Healthy Retail Rewards (18,19) +++ In–depth interviews, observations, and focus groups with small store owners and consumers. + (Feasibility) +++ dose received, fidelity) High feasibility Combined intervention showed greater discount (Phase 2) NA Not named (healthy foods at swimming pools) (20) ++ Developed and pre–tested observation forms and descriptive names for healthy items + (Operability) + (Fidelity) High acceptability Children interacted with the display and taste test Challenges offering healthy menu items NA HealthWorks (21–24) + Worksite food inventory + (Employed Advisory + (Fidelity) Low feasibility, pricing intervention was not implemented at any site Moderate fidelity Not named (Mississippi Healthy Beverages) (25) – – – High acceptability NA
Healthy Food program (54,55) – – – NA NA Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) (56,57) + Pre–tested survey instruments + (Operability) + (Dose received) High received: HIP exposure was higher than High dose received in intervention group; Low – moderate awareness Not named (Philadelphia financial incentives) (58) – – + (Dose received) NA NA Rewards study ++ 12–week pilot study that informed the design, incentive method, and eligibility criteria for the study +++ (Feasibility, Operability, Sustainability) – High acceptability and operability NA Disincentives for unhealthy foods and beverages, with and without incentives for healthy foods and beverage purchases Berkeley, California, excise tax on soda (62,63) – + (Operability) – NA NA Danish saturated fat tax – + (Operability) – Moderate feasibility NA Excise tax on SSBs in Mexico – – + (Fidelity) High feasibility NA Not named (French food baskets) (71) – – – NA NA