The conceptualisation and operationalisation of 'marketing' in public health research: a review of reviews focused on food marketing using principles from critical interpretive synthesis.
Critical interpretive synthesis.
Diet
Food
Marketing
Public health
Review
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 07 2023
24 07 2023
Historique:
received:
22
12
2022
accepted:
11
07
2023
medline:
26
7
2023
pubmed:
25
7
2023
entrez:
24
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Extensive public health research reports the nature, scope and effects of various marketing activities used by food and drinks companies to support the sale of their products. Such literature informs the regulation of food marketing that encourages unhealthy eating behaviours and poor diet-related health outcomes. However, it is not clear whether this literature consistently conceptualises and applies marketing, which could in turn influence the approach and efficacy of policies to regulate food marketing. We aimed to understand the conceptualisation and operationalisation of marketing in public health research of food marketing, eventually focusing on the conceptualisation of integrated marketing. We conducted a review of reviews that drew on scoping review methods and applied principles of critical interpretive synthesis. Five databases of peer-reviewed literature and websites of relevant organisations were searched in June - August 2020. Articles were screened against inclusion criteria to identify reviews examining food marketing in a health context. Informative text segments from included articles were coded using NVivo. Codes were grouped into synthetic constructs and a synthesising argument. After screening against inclusion criteria, 60 publications were eligible for inclusion. Informative text segments from 24 publications were coded, after which no new codes were identified. Our synthesising argument was that the understanding of integrated marketing appeared inconsistent across publications, such as by differences in use of underlying conceptual frameworks and in the application of terms such as marketing strategy and tactics. Using our synthesising argument, we suggest ways to improve the future study of food marketing in public health research, for example by using in-depth case studies to understand the integrated operation and effect of multi-component marketing strategies. Improving conceptual clarity in the study of food marketing in public health research has the potential to inform policy that is more reflective of the true nature of marketing, and thus more effective in combating food marketing effects and protecting public health. The review protocol was made publicly available on Open Science Framework prior to the start of the study (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VSJCW ).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Extensive public health research reports the nature, scope and effects of various marketing activities used by food and drinks companies to support the sale of their products. Such literature informs the regulation of food marketing that encourages unhealthy eating behaviours and poor diet-related health outcomes. However, it is not clear whether this literature consistently conceptualises and applies marketing, which could in turn influence the approach and efficacy of policies to regulate food marketing. We aimed to understand the conceptualisation and operationalisation of marketing in public health research of food marketing, eventually focusing on the conceptualisation of integrated marketing.
METHODS
We conducted a review of reviews that drew on scoping review methods and applied principles of critical interpretive synthesis. Five databases of peer-reviewed literature and websites of relevant organisations were searched in June - August 2020. Articles were screened against inclusion criteria to identify reviews examining food marketing in a health context. Informative text segments from included articles were coded using NVivo. Codes were grouped into synthetic constructs and a synthesising argument.
RESULTS
After screening against inclusion criteria, 60 publications were eligible for inclusion. Informative text segments from 24 publications were coded, after which no new codes were identified. Our synthesising argument was that the understanding of integrated marketing appeared inconsistent across publications, such as by differences in use of underlying conceptual frameworks and in the application of terms such as marketing strategy and tactics.
CONCLUSIONS
Using our synthesising argument, we suggest ways to improve the future study of food marketing in public health research, for example by using in-depth case studies to understand the integrated operation and effect of multi-component marketing strategies. Improving conceptual clarity in the study of food marketing in public health research has the potential to inform policy that is more reflective of the true nature of marketing, and thus more effective in combating food marketing effects and protecting public health.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
The review protocol was made publicly available on Open Science Framework prior to the start of the study (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VSJCW ).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37488556
doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16293-4
pii: 10.1186/s12889-023-16293-4
pmc: PMC10367353
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1419Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Nutrients. 2020 Mar 31;12(4):
pubmed: 32244299
Obes Rev. 2019 Nov;20 Suppl 2:116-128
pubmed: 30977265
J Paediatr Child Health. 2014 May;50(5):386-92
pubmed: 24372719
Appetite. 2013 Mar;62:209-15
pubmed: 22561190
Am J Public Health. 2008 Sep;98(9):1616-29
pubmed: 18633097
Public Health Nutr. 2020 Jun;23(8):1281-1296
pubmed: 32209142
Health Educ Behav. 2015 Oct;42(5):569-82
pubmed: 25504570
Milbank Q. 2018 Sep;96(3):472-498
pubmed: 30277610
Obes Rev. 2016 Oct;17(10):945-59
pubmed: 27427474
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Oct 8;14(1):137
pubmed: 28988542
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Dec;4(12):e895-e896
pubmed: 27855860
Syst Rev. 2016 Sep 29;5(1):164
pubmed: 27686611
Global Health. 2020 Aug 17;16(1):74
pubmed: 32807183
Nutrients. 2020 Apr 11;12(4):
pubmed: 32290522
PLoS Med. 2018 Jul 3;15(7):e1002597
pubmed: 29969444
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jan;10(1):45-53
pubmed: 15667704
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jul 26;6:35
pubmed: 16872487
Lancet Public Health. 2016 Dec 16;2(1):e15-e22
pubmed: 28804786
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Jun;13(3):223-5
pubmed: 15175495
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 23;13:48
pubmed: 23522333
Obes Rev. 2015 Feb;16(2):107-26
pubmed: 25516352
Obes Rev. 2019 Oct;20(10):1384-1399
pubmed: 31397087
Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2017 Sep;37(9):274-292
pubmed: 28902477
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 14;8(2):e019311
pubmed: 29444784
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Sep 12;14(9):
pubmed: 28895921
Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Feb;103(2):519-33
pubmed: 26791177
Appetite. 2016 Apr 1;99:219-234
pubmed: 26785316
Subst Use Misuse. 2012 Jun-Jul;47(8-9):868-76
pubmed: 22676559
Obes Rev. 2020 Jan;21(1):e12948
pubmed: 31633289
Obes Rev. 2019 Dec;20(12):1708-1719
pubmed: 31468652
Eur J Public Health. 2020 Dec 11;30(6):1230-1232
pubmed: 33313818
Obes Rev. 2019 Nov;20 Suppl 2:129-140
pubmed: 31245920
JAMA. 1995 Dec 13;274(22):1800-4
pubmed: 7500513
Food Res Int. 2015 Sep;75:13-19
pubmed: 28454939
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Nov 02;16(21):
pubmed: 31684019
Nutr Rev. 2019 Nov 1;77(11):787-816
pubmed: 31329232
Obes Rev. 2013 Oct;14 Suppl 1:108-19
pubmed: 24074215
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
Am J Public Health. 2015 Apr;105(4):e86-95
pubmed: 25713968
Appetite. 2019 May 1;136:193-207
pubmed: 30819576
Obes Rev. 2017 Sep;18(9):1018-1039
pubmed: 28560820
Nutrients. 2020 Mar 30;12(4):
pubmed: 32235580
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jan;68(1):154-68
pubmed: 19013702
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Oct;262:113257
pubmed: 32771875
BMJ. 2020 Mar 17;368:m545
pubmed: 32184211
Public Health. 2018 Mar;156:109-116
pubmed: 29427766
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Nov 15;14(1):156
pubmed: 29141646