Healthy Food NA NA – – – program (54,55) Healthy + + + High High dose received Incentives in intervention Pre–tested survey (Operability) (Dose Pilot (HIP) group; Low – instruments received) (56,57) received: HIP moderate awareness exposure was higher than Not named + NA NA – – (Philadelphia (Dose financial received) incentives) (58) Rewards ++ +++ High NA – study acceptability 12–week pilot study that (Feasibility, and informed the design, Operability, operability incentive method, and Sustainability) eligibility criteria for the study Disincentives for unhealthy foods and beverages, with and without incentives for healthy foods and beverage purchases Berkeley, + NA NA – – California, (Operability) excise tax on soda (62,63) Danish + Moderate NA – – saturated fat feasibility (Operability) tax + High NA Excise tax on – – SSBs in feasibility (Fidelity) Mexico Not named NA NA – – – (French food baskets) (71)
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
17_0213Appendix.docx