Dataset Information

Association between store food environment and customer purchases in small grocery stores, gas-marts, pharmacies and dollar stores.

ABSTRACT: Purchases at small/non-traditional food stores tend to have poor nutritional quality, and have been associated with poor health outcomes, including increased obesity risk The purpose of this study was to examine whether customers who shop at small/non-traditional food stores with more health promoting features make healthier purchases.In a cross-sectional design, data collectors assessed store features in a sample of 99 small and non-traditional food stores not participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN in 2014. Customer intercept interviews (n = 594) collected purchase data from a bag check and demographics from a survey. Store measures included fruit/vegetable and whole grain availability, an overall Healthy Food Supply Score (HFSS), healthy food advertisements and in-store placement, and shelf space of key items. Customer nutritional measures were analyzed using Nutrient Databases System for Research (NDSR), and included the purchase of ?1 serving of fruits/vegetables; ?1 serving of whole grains; and overall Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-2010) score for foods/beverages purchased. Associations between store and customer measures were estimated in multilevel linear and logistic regression models, controlling for customer characteristics and store type.Few customers purchased fruits and vegetables (8%) or whole grains (8%). In fully adjusted models, purchase HEI-2010 scores were associated with fruit/vegetable shelf space (p = 0.002) and the ratio of shelf space devoted to healthy vs. less healthy items (p = 0.0002). Offering ?14 varieties of fruit/vegetables was associated with produce purchases (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.2-12.3), as was having produce visible from the store entrance (OR 2.3 95% CI 1.0 to 5.8), but whole grain availability measures were not associated with whole grain purchases.Strategies addressing both customer demand and the availability of healthy food may be necessary to improve customer purchases.ClinialTrials.gov: NCT02774330 . Registered May 4, 2016 (retrospectively registered).

SUBMITTER: Caspi CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5460502 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association between store food environment and customer purchases in small grocery stores, gas-marts, pharmacies and dollar stores.

Caspi Caitlin E CE Lenk Kathleen K Pelletier Jennifer E JE Barnes Timothy L TL Harnack Lisa L Erickson Darin J DJ Laska Melissa N MN

The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity 20170605 1

<h4>Background</h4>Purchases at small/non-traditional food stores tend to have poor nutritional quality, and have been associated with poor health outcomes, including increased obesity risk The purpose of this study was to examine whether customers who shop at small/non-traditional food stores with more health promoting features make healthier purchases.<h4>Methods</h4>In a cross-sectional design, data collectors assessed store features in a sample of 99 small and non-traditional food stores not ...[more]

PMID: 28583131

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many lower-income and racially diverse communities in the U.S. have limited access to healthy foods, with few supermarkets and many small convenience stores, which tend to stock limited quantities and varieties of healthy foods. To address food access, in 2015 the Minneapolis Staple Foods Ordinance became the first policy requiring food stores to stock minimum quantities and varieties of 10 categories of healthy foods/beverages, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains and other staples, through licensing. This study examined whether: (a) stores complied, (b) overall healthfulness of store environments improved, (c) healthy customer purchases increased, and (d) healthfulness of home food environments improved among frequent small store shoppers. METHODS:Data for this natural (or quasi) experiment were collected at four times: pre-policy (2014), implementation only (no enforcement, 2015), enforcement initiation (2016) and continued monitoring (2017). In-person store assessments were conducted to evaluate food availability, price, quality, marketing and placement in randomly sampled food retailers in Minneapolis (n?=?84) and compared to those in a nearby control city, St. Paul, Minnesota (n?=?71). Stores were excluded that were: supermarkets, authorized through WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children), and specialty stores (e.g., spice shops). Customer intercept interviews were conducted with 3,039 customers exiting stores. Home visits, including administration of home food inventories, were conducted with a sub-sample of frequent shoppers (n?=?88). RESULTS:Overall, findings indicated significant improvements in healthy food offerings by retailers over time in both Minneapolis and St. Paul, with no significant differences in change between the two cities. Compliance was low; in 2017 only 10% of Minneapolis retailers in the sample were fully compliant, and 51% of participating Minneapolis retailers met at least 8 of the 10 required standards. Few changes were observed in the healthfulness of customer purchases or the healthfulness of home food environments among frequent shoppers, and changes were not different between cities. CONCLUSIONS:This study is the first evaluation a local staple foods ordinance in the U.S. and reflects the challenges and time required for implementing such policies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02774330 .

Project description:BackgroundThe HealthyFood (HF) program offers members up to 25% cash back monthly on healthy food purchases. In this randomized controlled trial, we tested the efficacy of financial incentives combined with text messages in increasing healthy food purchases among HF members.MethodsMembers receiving the lowest (10%) cash back level were randomized to one of six arms: Arm 1 (Usual Care): 10% cash back, no weekly text, standard monthly text; Arm 2: 10% cash back, generic weekly text, standard monthly text; Arm 3: 10% cash back, personalized weekly text, standard monthly text; Arm 4: 25% cash back, personalized weekly text, standard monthly text; Arm 5: 10 + 15%NET cash back, personalized weekly text, standard monthly text; and, Arm 6: 10 + 15%NET cash back, personalized weekly text, unbundled monthly text. In the 10 + 15%NET cash back, the cash back amount was the baseline 10% plus 15% of the net difference between healthy and unhealthy spending. The generic text included information on HF and healthy eating, while the personalized text had individualized feedback on purchases. The standard monthly text contained the cash back amount. The unbundled monthly text included the amount lost due to unhealthy purchases. The primary outcome was the average monthly percent healthy food spending. Secondary outcomes were the percent unhealthy food spending, and the percent healthy and unhealthy food items.ResultsOf the members contacted, 20 opted out, and 2841 met all inclusion criteria. There were no between-arm differences in the examined outcomes. The largest mean (standard deviation) difference in percent healthy spending was between Arm 1 (24.8% [11%]) and Arm 2 (26.8% [13%]), and the largest mean difference in percent unhealthy spending was also between Arm 1 (24.4% [20%]) and Arm 2 (21.7% [17%]), but no differences were statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons.ConclusionsNone of the tested financial incentive structures or text strategies differentially affected food purchasing. Notably, more than doubling the cash back amount and introducing a financial disincentive for unhealthy purchases did not affect purchasing. These findings speak to the difficulty of changing shopping habits and to the need for innovative strategies to shift complex health behaviors.Trial registrationNCT02486588 Increasing Engagement with a Healthy Food Benefit. The trial was prospectively registered on July 1, 2015.

Project description:BackgroundDiet is an important determinant of health, and food purchasing is a key antecedent to consumption.ObjectiveWe set out to evaluate the effectiveness of grocery store interventions to change food purchasing, and to examine whether effectiveness varied based on intervention components, setting, or socioeconomic status.DesignWe conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (search performed June 2017). Studies must have: aimed to change food purchasing; been implemented in grocery stores (real or simulated); reported purchasing; and had a minimal control or compared interventions fulfilling our criteria. Searching, screening, bias assessment, and data extraction followed Cochrane methods. We grouped studies by intervention type (economic, environmental, swaps, and/or education), synthesized results narratively, and conducted an exploratory qualitative comparative analysis.ResultsWe included 35 studies representing 89 interventions, >20,000 participants, and >800 stores. Risk of bias was mixed. Economic interventions showed the most promise, with 8 of the 9 studies in real stores and all 6 in simulated environments detecting an effect on purchasing. Swap interventions appeared promising in the 2 studies based in real stores. Store environment interventions showed mixed effects. Education-only interventions appeared effective in simulated environments but not in real stores. Available data suggested that effects of economic interventions did not differ by socioeconomic status, whereas for other interventions impact was variable. In our qualitative comparative analysis, economic interventions (regardless of setting) and environmental and swap interventions in real stores were associated with statistically significant changes in purchasing in the desired direction for ?1 of the foods targeted by the intervention, whereas education-only interventions in real stores were not.ConclusionsFindings suggest that interventions implemented in grocery stores-particularly ones that manipulate price, suggest swaps, and perhaps manipulate item availability-have an impact on purchasing and could play a role in public health strategies to improve health. Review protocol registered at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ as CRD42017068809.

Dataset Information

Association between store food environment and customer purchases in small grocery stores, gas-marts, pharmacies and dollar stores.

Publications

Association between store food environment and customer purchases in small grocery stores, gas-marts, pharmacies and dollar stores.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets