4.3 Article

Assessment of a government-subsidized supermarket in a high-need area on household food availability and children's dietary intakes

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 18, 期 15, 页码 2881-2890

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980015000282

关键词

Children; Dietary intake; Food access; Supermarket; Policy

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Healthy Eating Research Program [68236]
  2. Aetna Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess the impact of a new government-subsidized supermarket in a high-need area on household food availability and dietary habits in children. Design A difference-in-difference study design was utilized. Setting Two neighbourhoods in the Bronx, New York City. Outcomes were collected in Morrisania, the target community where the new supermarket was opened, and Highbridge, the comparison community. Subjects Parents/caregivers of a child aged 3-10 years residing in Morrisania or Highbridge. Participants were recruited via street intercept at baseline (pre-supermarket opening) and at two follow-up periods (five weeks and one year post-supermarket opening). Results Analysis is based on 2172 street-intercept surveys and 363 dietary recalls from a sample of predominantly low-income minorities. While there were small, inconsistent changes over the time periods, there were no appreciable differences in availability of healthful or unhealthful foods at home, or in children's dietary intake as a result of the supermarket. Conclusions The introduction of a government-subsidized supermarket into an underserved neighbourhood in the Bronx did not result in significant changes in household food availability or children's dietary intake. Given the lack of healthful food options in underserved neighbourhoods and need for programmes that promote access, further research is needed to determine whether healthy food retail expansion, alone or with other strategies, can improve food choices of children and their families.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据