4.3 Article

Assessing the Retail Food Environment in Madrid: An Evaluation of Administrative Data against Ground Truthing

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16193538

关键词

retail food environment; validity; secondary data; differential exposure; ground-truthing; food outlets; Spain

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Union [336893]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [336893] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have suggested that European settings face unique food environment issues; however, retail food environments (RFE) outside Anglo-Saxon contexts remain understudied. We assessed the completeness and accuracy of an administrative dataset against ground truthing, using the example of Madrid (Spain). Further, we tested whether its completeness differed by its area-level socioeconomic status (SES) and population density. First, we collected data on the RFE through the ground truthing of 42 census tracts. Second, we retrieved data on the RFE from an administrative dataset covering the entire city (n = 2412 census tracts), and matched outlets using location matching and location/name matching. Third, we validated the administrative dataset against the gold standard of ground truthing. Using location matching, the administrative dataset had a high sensitivity (0.95; [95% CI = 0.89, 0.98]) and positive predictive values (PPV) (0.79; [95% CI = 0.70, 0.85]), while these values were substantially lower using location/name matching (0.55 and 0.45, respectively). Accuracy was slightly higher using location/name matching (k = 0.71 vs 0.62). We found some evidence for systematic differences in PPV by area-level SES using location matching, and in both sensitivity and PPV by population density using location/name matching. Administrative datasets may offer a reliable and cost-effective source to measure retail food access; however, their accuracy needs to be evaluated before using them for research purposes.

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