Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24192274›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2014

Environmental influences on fruit and vegetable intake: results from a path analytic model.

Angela D Liese, Bethany A Bell, Timothy L Barnes, Natalie Colabianchi, James D Hibbert, Christine E Blake, Darcy A Freedman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Food Acquisition Practices, Body Mass Index, and Dietary Outcomes by Level of Rurality.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Angela D Liese1Center for Research in Nutrition and Health Disparities,Arnold School of Public Health,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics,University of South Carolina,921 Assembly Street,Columbia,SC 29208,USA.
Bethany A Bell2College of Education,University of South Carolina,Columbia,SC,USA.
Timothy L Barnes1Center for Research in Nutrition and Health Disparities,Arnold School of Public Health,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics,University of South Carolina,921 Assembly Street,Columbia,SC 29208,USA.
Natalie Colabianchi3Institute for Social Research,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MI,USA.
James D Hibbert1Center for Research in Nutrition and Health Disparities,Arnold School of Public Health,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics,University of South Carolina,921 Assembly Street,Columbia,SC 29208,USA.
Christine E Blake4Department of Health Promotion,Education,and Behavior,University of South Carolina,Columbia,SC,USA.
Darcy A Freedman5College of Social Work,University of South Carolina,Columbia,SC,USA.
University of South Carolina · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Developing Measures of the Built Nutritional EnvironmentR21CA132133 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI LAWSON, ANDREW B., LIESE, ANGELA D · 2008 to 2010
$663k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA132133NCI NIH HHS R21CA132133-02S1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveFruit and vegetable (F&V) intake is influenced by behavioural and environmental factors, but these have rarely been assessed simultaneously. We aimed to quantify the relative influence of supermarket availability, perceptions of the food environment and shopping behaviour on F&V intake.

designA cross-sectional study.

settingEight counties in South Carolina, USA, with verified locations of all supermarkets. SUBJECTS: A telephone survey of 831 household food shoppers ascertained F&V intake with a seventeen-item screener, primary food store location, shopping frequency and perceptions of healthy food availability, and supermarket availability was calculated with a geographic information system. Path analysis was conducted. We report standardized beta coefficients on paths significant at the 0·05 level.

resultsFrequency of grocery shopping at primary food store (β = 0·11) was the only factor exerting an independent, statistically significant direct effect on F&V intake. Supermarket availability was significantly associated with distance to utilized food store (β = -0·24) and shopping frequency (β = 0·10). Increased supermarket availability was significantly and positively related to perceived healthy food availability in the neighbourhood (β = 0·18) and ease of shopping access (β = 0·09). Collectively considering all model paths linked to perceived availability of healthy foods, this measure was the only other factor to have a significant total effect on F&V intake.

conclusionsWhile the majority of the literature to date has suggested an independent and important role of supermarket availability for F&V intake, our study found only indirect effects of supermarket availability and suggests that food shopping frequency and perceptions of healthy food availability are two integral components of a network of influences on F&V intake.

Indexed as

FruitSocial EnvironmentVegetablesAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDietFemaleFood SupplyHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedResidence CharacteristicsSouth Carolina

Identifiers

PMID24192274
PMCPMC4024083
OpenAlexW2325933474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.