Methods to assess front-of-pack label effects on consumer choice, purchase and purchasing intention
Abstract
Introduction/Objectives: Understanding methodological aspects of front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPNL) research is essential to identify quality indicators in published studies and support evidence-based policy-making. This study aims to describe designs and key methodological parameters of interventional studies assessing FoPNL effects on adults’ food choices, purchasing intentions, or actual purchases.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science (March 13, 2025) and JSTOR (March 17, 2025). Screening and selection were done in duplicate with consensus with a third reviewer. Data extraction was partially duplicated using a piloted form and analyzed descriptively. Included studies assessed FoPNL alone or with other interventions versus no label or alternative labels. Outcomes included food choices, purchases, or intentions. Studies in real or virtual settings using real or mock products were eligible; out-of-home studies were included only when pre-packaged products were tested.
Results: From 13,245 records, 126 studies were included. Four main designs were identified: RCTs with discrete choice tasks (n = 62), RCTs with supermarket-like tasks (n = 31), quasi-experiments with discrete choice tasks (n = 17), and quasi-experiments using purchase data (n = 16). Most studies were online presenting products digitally. Product categories typically ranged from 6–10, but supermarket-like RCTs included 10–40. Product sets varied widely: 2–5 products in discrete choice studies versus 50 to > 10,000 in supermarket simulations. Real products were most common, though mock products were frequent in discrete choice designs. Outcomes focused on choice or intention in experimental studies, and actual purchases in quasi-experiments.
Conclusions: Heterogeneity in study designs, settings, and outcomes highlights need to clarify best-practice designs and methods for policy-making.
Key messages: • FoPNL studies vary widely in design, methods, settings, and product exposure, limiting comparability.
• Standardization of methods and quality criteria is needed to support robust research and effective policy use.
Related
- Consumer acceptance and market viability of artisanal granadilla wine in Puno, Peru: a concept test using the marketing mix and purchasing behavior approach
- Nonlinear speaker–listener age interactions shape how listeners’ perceived emotions and voice impressions mediate purchase intention in advertising speech
- Actinometric Methods to Assess Fluence for Ultraviolet Water Disinfection: A Systematic Review
- Consumer experiences and perceptions of change during psychotherapy for suicide imagery – a mixed-methods case series of Integrated skills for SUicide IMagery (I-SUIM)
- Validity of the rod and frame test and the romberg ratio as methods to assess visual dependence in human standing balance
BibTeX
@article{yazbeck2026methods,
title = {{Methods to assess front-of-pack label effects on consumer choice, purchase and purchasing intention}},
author = {B Yazbeck and L Ghosn and A Meirhaeghe and C Férard and I Boutron and C Julia},
journal = {The European Journal of Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1871},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1871},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Methods to assess front-of-pack label effects on consumer choice, purchase and purchasing intention
AU - B Yazbeck
AU - L Ghosn
AU - A Meirhaeghe
AU - C Férard
AU - I Boutron
AU - C Julia
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - The European Journal of Public Health
DO - 10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1871
UR - https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1871
AB - Introduction/Objectives: Understanding methodological aspects of front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPNL) research is essential to identify quality indicators in published studies and support evidence-based policy-making. This study aims to describe designs and key methodological parameters of interventional studies assessing FoPNL effects on adults’ food choices, purchasing intentions, or actual purchases. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science (March 13, 2025) and JSTOR (March 17, 2025). Screening and selection were done in duplicate with consensus with a third reviewer. Data extraction was partially duplicated using a piloted form and analyzed descriptively. Included studies assessed FoPNL alone or with other interventions versus no label or alternative labels. Outcomes included food choices, purchases, or intentions. Studies in real or virtual settings using real or mock products were eligible; out-of-home studies were included only when pre-packaged products were tested. Results: From 13,245 records, 126 studies were included. Four main designs were identified: RCTs with discrete choice tasks (n = 62), RCTs with supermarket-like tasks (n = 31), quasi-experiments with discrete choice tasks (n = 17), and quasi-experiments using purchase data (n = 16). Most studies were online presenting products digitally. Product categories typically ranged from 6–10, but supermarket-like RCTs included 10–40. Product sets varied widely: 2–5 products in discrete choice studies versus 50 to > 10,000 in supermarket simulations. Real products were most common, though mock products were frequent in discrete choice designs. Outcomes focused on choice or intention in experimental studies, and actual purchases in quasi-experiments. Conclusions: Heterogeneity in study designs, settings, and outcomes highlights need to clarify best-practice designs and methods for policy-making. Key messages: • FoPNL studies vary widely in design, methods, settings, and product exposure, limiting comparability. • Standardization of methods and quality criteria is needed to support robust research and effective policy use.
SN - 1101-1262
SN - 1464-360X
ER -