![147980-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-08/147980-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=jdr0u5ljiTVOcfEIuGaRsGGVsPY.V1c3&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240530/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240530T154151Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=4bc8c3309e8e49bdff0f97998a97cc5d7b2d760260d9f9d7b0b42ae76cd11e09&itok=JFMe-RTC)
Introduction: In-store promotion of food products leads to more frequent purchases. Product promotion can vary by store characteristics. We compared marketing strategies used by grocery stores to promote fruit and vegetables (FV) in neighborhoods with varying socio-economic and racial/ethnic characteristics.<br/><br/>Methods: Data was collected from a random sample of 12 large grocery stores from the same national chain located within a 15-mile radius of Downtown Phoenix. Store zip-code level median household income was used to classify stores as located in lower (<$50,000) or higher (>$50,000) income areas. Stores located in neighborhoods with more than 50% Hispanic population were classified as majority Hispanic serving. The ProPromo tool was adapted to document the presence and promotion of FV at 8 distinct locations throughout each store. Types of promotion strategies documented included displays, price promotions, size, or themes.<br/><br/>Results: FV were present at the entrance, islands, checkouts, and produce section; while fruits were promoted in all of these locations, vegetables were promotion in fewer locations. All stores used size and price promotion to promote FV; display was used to promote vegetables in 2 stores and fruits in all stores. On average stores promoted 32 fruits and 38 vegetables. Stores serving higher and lower income areas promoted similar numbers of FV. However, stores in Hispanic majority neighborhoods promoted fewer FV (66) in comparison to those in Hispanic minority areas (73).<br/><br/>Conclusion: Fruit and vegetable promotion disparity associated with neighborhood demographics may contribute to disparities in fruit and vegetable consumption.
![147902-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-07/147902-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=uC9X6b_HGEXczK8e.kr34rXsehITcg6K&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240530/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240530T153948Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=9321828469e0bf810a90b49c2b0b5cca8f6588c5fc7b29eb593f7c9e8e8d1485&itok=OG0reCzv)
Hispanic youth have the highest risk for obesity, making this population a key priority for early childhood interventions to prevent the development of adult obesity and its consequences. Involving parents in these interventions is essential to support positive long-term physical activity and nutrition habits. Interventions in the past have engaged parents by providing information about nutrition and fruit and vegetable intake through written materials or text such as newsletters and text messages. The Sustainability via Active Garden Education (SAGE) intervention used gardening and interactive activities to teach preschool children ages 3-5 about healthy eating and physical activity. It aimed to increase physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake in preschool children as well as improve related parenting practices. The intervention utilized newsletters to engage parents by promoting opportunities to increase physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake for their children at home. The newsletters also encouraged parents to discuss what was learned during the SAGE lessons with their children. The purpose of this paper is to describe the content of the newsletters and determine the parent perception of the newsletters through parent survey responses. This can help inform future childhood obesity interventions and parent engagement.
![151522-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-09/151522-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=I0KSSAEW5R4DE7BXvH7Bb7o57CyxAHEK&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240610/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240610T000224Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=5941b4bd0c9ee1cd30a288e78d06c61e681086e7adb2209517113a7face6f89a&itok=VMFN6jYN)
![133074-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-05/133074-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=ebUCzfhqApkGp4t5JHOQLvJDBRYkkUeO&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240610/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240610T052930Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=0e91ecd5792938efd65d2d3c1aae0b8249e3354ee78b68c1d126a65a1414aa78&itok=AgSMEh6h)
![133665-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-05/133665-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=1tgIu3Kh9OkFhuw7oyzKO3d2qzLEkGQg&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240611/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240611T043759Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=d85ca66bf91451650de9a5e533b50913bd89f29019ed2a563fa39c6812ccb553&itok=3uF5pH-C)
![134004-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-05/134004-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=EUQ0PIFIj.SP1MdjmG4._P69NeEC.2dz&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240610/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240610T230837Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=a98ac5e8292320ec72c7768d6094a1239809eeaf94a39c3e76c3902a6d70a032&itok=_nkHW5or)
![160837-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-10/160837-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=M1WkJIfnxrWozwy5I482olNLt00I2OBp&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240610/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240610T165422Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=6c8a671cd3dfa78290a346535de39e65e2faafe9808d1daabadf6c6b8f4424ef&itok=vzUHd0YB)
Disparities in healthy food access are well documented in cross-sectional studies in communities across the United States. However, longitudinal studies examining changes in food environments within various neighborhood contexts are scarce. In a sample of 142 census tracts in four low-income, high-minority cities in New Jersey, United States, we examined the availability of different types of food stores by census tract characteristics over time (2009–2017). Outlets were classified as supermarkets, small grocery stores, convenience stores, and pharmacies using multiple sources of data and a rigorous protocol. Census tracts were categorized by median household income and race/ethnicity of the population each year. Significant declines were observed in convenience store prevalence in lower- and medium-income and majority black tracts (p for trend: 0.004, 0.031, and 0.006 respectively), while a slight increase was observed in the prevalence of supermarkets in medium-income tracts (p for trend: 0.059). The decline in prevalence of convenience stores in lower-income and minority neighborhoods is likely attributable to declining incomes in these already poor communities. Compared to non-Hispanic neighborhoods, Hispanic communities had a higher prevalence of small groceries and convenience stores. This higher prevalence of smaller stores, coupled with shopping practices of Hispanic consumers, suggests that efforts to upgrade smaller stores in Hispanic communities may be more sustainable.
![160872-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-10/160872-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=Qoif5VbdKu2YsDf46JOy2lsVoPKLlY1W&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240611/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240611T011425Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=f06bca76c6d3898454e09600689110b3c0631a8143ab1dc52b5218b82f8c36dc&itok=scR1lhph)
Objective
In response to recent national efforts to increase the availability of healthy food in small stores, we sought to understand the extent to which small food stores could implement the newly published Healthy Small Store Minimum Stocking Recommendations and reflect on the new US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service's final rule for stocking of staple foods for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–approved retailers.
Design
We collected qualitative and quantitative data from 57 small stores in four states (Arizona, Delaware, Minnesota, and North Carolina) that accepted Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program but not Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children benefits. Data from semistructured, in-depth interviews with managers/owners were transcribed, coded, and analyzed. We collected quantitative store inventory data onsite and later performed descriptive analyses.
Results
Store interviews revealed a reluctant willingness to stock healthy food and meet new recommendations. No stores met recommended fruit and vegetable stocking, although 79% carried at least one qualifying fruit and 74% carried at least one qualifying vegetable. Few stores met requirements for other food categories (ie, whole grains and low-fat dairy) with the exception of lean proteins, where stores carrying nuts or nut butter were more likely to meet the protein recommendation. Water and 100% juice were widely available and 68% met basic healthy beverage criteria.
Conclusions
In contrast to the inventory observed, most owners believed store stock met basic recommendations. Further, findings indicate that small stores are capable of stocking healthy products; however, technical and infrastructure support, as well as incentives, would facilitate shifts from staple to healthier staple foods. Retailers may need support to understand healthier product criteria and to drive consumer demand for new products.
![160874-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-10/160874-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=XvCVjHFyG5Bu3cpuc1e7M_ijnSfyDJYr&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240610/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240610T173719Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=8503f73e09c5b3b55b2b75580f599a347229d4a75525f1a524aadac20becc91e&itok=aE38kGlj)
In response to lack of access to healthy foods, many low-income communities are instituting local healthy corner store programs. Some stores also participate in the United States Department of Agriculture's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This study used two assessment tools to compare the healthfulness of offerings at stores participating in local healthy store programs (upgraded stores), WIC, and/or SNAP to that of similar non-participating stores.
Based on store audits conducted in 315 New Jersey corner stores in 2014, we calculated healthy food availability scores using subsections of the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey for Corner Stores (NEMS-CS-Availability) and a short-form corner store audit tool (SCAT). We used multivariable regression to examine associations between program participation and scores on both instruments.
Adjusting for store and block group characteristics, stores participating in a local healthy store program had significantly higher SCAT scores than did non-participating stores (upgraded: M = 3.18, 95% CI 2.65–3.71; non-upgraded: M = 2.52, 95% CI 2.32–2.73); scores on the NEMS-CS-Availability did not differ (upgraded: M = 12.8, 95% CI 11.6–14.1; non-upgraded: M = 12.5, 95% CI 12.0–13.0). WIC-participating stores had significantly higher scores compared to non-participating stores on both tools. Stores participating in SNAP only (and not in WIC) scored significantly lower on both instruments compared to non-SNAP stores.
WIC-participating and non-SNAP corner stores had higher healthfulness scores on both assessment tools. Upgraded stores had higher healthfulness scores compared to non-upgraded stores on the SCAT.