Identifying dietary differences between Scotland and England: a rapid review of the literature

Defining Rapid Reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Rapid reviews were first mentioned in the literature in 1997, when Best et al. described the rapid health technology assessment program in the south and west regions of England but did not provide a formal definition. More recently, the only consensus around a rapid review definition is that a formal definition does not exist. The primary aim of this work is to create a repository of existing definitions and to identify key themes, which may help the knowledge synthesis community in defining rapid review products.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was performed to identify definitions used in journal-published rapid reviews written in English between 2017 and January 2019. We searched Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science on December 21, 2018. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction using a priori-defined methods published in a protocol. Definitions from rapid review methods articles (published from 1997 onward) identified in another scoping review were added to the results, and all definitions were thematically analyzed using NVivo. A quantitative analysis was also performed around studies cited.

RESULTS

Definitions from 216 rapid reviews and 90 rapid review methods articles were included in the thematic analysis. Eight key themes were identified: accelerated/rapid process or approach, variation in methods shortcuts, focus/depth/breadth of scope, compare and contrast to a full traditional systematic review, stakeholder rationale, resource efficiency rationale, systematic approach, bias/limitations. Secondary referencing was a common occurrence.

CONCLUSION

Thematic analysis performed in this systematic scoping review has allowed for the creation of a suggested definition for rapid reviews that can be used to inform the systematic review community.

Using nutritional survey data to inform the design of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in low-resource contexts: a cross-sectional analysis based on data from an adult Caribbean population

OBJECTIVE

Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes have been implemented widely. We aimed to use a pre-existing nutritional survey data to inform SSB tax design by assessing: (1) baseline consumption of SSBs and SSB-derived free sugars, (2) the percentage of SSB-derived free sugars that would be covered by a tax and (3) the extent to which a tax would differentiate between high-sugar SSBs and low-sugar SSBs. We evaluated these three considerations using pre-existing nutritional survey data in a developing economy setting.

METHODS

We used data from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey in Barbados (2012-2013, prior to SSB tax implementation). Data were available on 334 adults (25-64 years) who completed two non-consecutive 24-hour dietary recalls. We estimated the prevalence of SSB consumption and its contribution to total energy intake, overall and stratified by taxable status. We assessed the percentage of SSB-derived free sugars subject to the tax and identified the consumption-weighted sugar concentration of SSBs, stratified by taxable status.

FINDINGS

Accounting for sampling probability, 88.8% of adults (95% CI 85.1 to 92.5) reported SSB consumption, with a geometric mean of 2.4 servings/day (±2 SD, 0.6, 9.2) among SSB consumers. Sixty percent (95% CI 54.6 to 65.4) of SSB-derived free sugars would be subject to the tax. The tax did not clearly differentiate between high-sugar beverages and low-sugar beverages.

CONCLUSION

Given high SSB consumption, targeting SSBs was a sensible strategy in this setting. A substantial percentage of free sugars from SSBs were not covered by the tax, reducing possible health benefits. The considerations proposed here may help policymakers to design more effective SSB taxes.

Time to address the double inequality of differences in dietary intake between Scotland and England

Geographical disparities in health outcomes have been evident across the UK for decades. Recent analysis on the dietary differences between Scotland and England that might go some way to explain these health differences is limited. This study aimed to assess whether, and to what degree, aspects of diet and nutrition differ between Scottish and English populations, specifically between those with similar household incomes. A period of 12 years of UK food purchase data (2001-2012) were pooled and used to estimate household-level consumption data for Scotland and England. Population mean food consumption and nutrient intakes were estimated, adjusting for known confounders (year, age of household reference person, age they left full-time education and income). Comparison was also made within equivalised income quintiles. Analysis showed that the foods and nutrients that should be increased in the diet (highlighted in the Scottish Dietary Goals) were lower in Scotland than in England (e.g. fruit and vegetables 267 g/d; 99 % CI 259, 274 v. 298 g/d; 99 % CI 296, 301), P<0·001). Similarly, foods and drinks linked with poor health outcomes were higher in Scotland. These regional inequalities in diet were even more pronounced in the lower-income groups (e.g. red and processed meat consumption in the lowest-income quintile was 65 g/d; 99 % CI 61, 69 in Scotland v. 58 g/day; 99 % CI 57, 60 in England, P<0·001, but similar in the highest-income quintile (58 g/d; 99 % CI 54, 61 v. 59 g/d; 99 % CI 58, 60, respectively). A poorer diet in Scotland compared with England, particularly among disadvantaged groups, may contribute to differences in excess mortality between countries.