This systematic review investigates the characteristics, effectiveness and acceptability of interventions to encourage healthier eating in small, independent restaurants and takeaways.

We searched five databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index) in June 2022. Eligible studies had to measure changes in sales, availability, nutritional quality, portion sizes or dietary intake of interventions targeting customer behaviour or restaurant environments. We evaluated study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results are synthesised narratively, and interventions’ impact on personal autonomy is assessed using the Nuffield intervention ladder.

Small, independent or local restaurants or hot food takeaway outlets, with no restrictions by year or country.

Anyone selling or purchasing food in intervention settings (e.g. restaurant staff/owners, customers).

We screened 4624 records and included 12 studies describing 13 interventions in 351 businesses. Most studies were of poor quality. Customer-level intervention components mostly operated on the lower rungs of the Nuffield ladder, and most had limited positive effects on increasing demand, measured as sales or orders of healthy options. Whilst rare, most interventions measuring business outcomes operated on higher ladder rungs and showed small positive results. There was insufficient evidence to investigate differences in impact by intervention intrusiveness. Acceptability was greater for interventions that were low-effort, inexpensive and perceived as not negatively impacting on customer satisfaction.

Despite some evidence of small positive effects of healthy eating interventions on healthier purchases or restaurant/hot food takeaway practices, a weak evidence base hinders robust inference.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience acute exacerbations usually require treatment with oral steroids or antibiotics, depending on the etiology of the exacerbation. Current management is based on clinician's assessment and judgement, which lacks diagnostic accuracy and results in overtreatment. A test to guide these decisions in primary care is in development. We developed an early decision model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment stratification test in the primary care setting in the United Kingdom.

A combined decision tree and Markov model was developed of COPD progression and the exacerbation care pathway. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to guide technology development and inform evidence generation requirements.

The base case test strategy cost GBP 423 (USD 542) less and resulted in a health gain of 0.15 quality-adjusted life-years per patient compared with not testing. Testing reduced antibiotic prescriptions by 30 percent, potentially lowering the risk of antimicrobial resistance developing. In sensitivity analysis, the result depended on the clinical effects of treating patients according to the test result, as opposed to treating according to clinical judgement alone, for which there is limited evidence. The results were less sensitive to the accuracy of the test.

Testing may be cost-saving in primary care, but this requires robust evidence on whether test-guided treatment is effective. High quality evidence on the clinical utility of testing is required for early modeling of diagnostic tests generally.