Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24919425›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2014

Developing an agenda for research about policies to improve access to healthy foods in rural communities: a concept mapping study.

Donna B Johnson, Emilee Quinn, Marilyn Sitaker, Alice Ammerman, Carmen Byker, Wesley Dean, Sheila Fleischhacker, Jane Kolodinsky, Courtney Pinard, Stephanie B Jilcott Pitts and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Developing a National Research Agenda to Support Healthy Food Retail.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  8. Place Effects and Chronic Disease Rates in a Rural State: Evidence from a Triangulation of Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

11 authors.

Donna B JohnsonNutritional Sciences, University of Washington, 98195, Box 353410, Seattle, WA, USA. djohn@uw.edu.
Emilee Quinn
Marilyn Sitaker
Alice Ammerman
Carmen Byker
Wesley Dean
Sheila Fleischhacker
Jane Kolodinsky
Courtney Pinard
Stephanie B Jilcott Pitts
Joseph Sharkey

Funding

HEALTH PROMOTION RESEARCH CENTERU48DP001911 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HARRIS, JEFFREY RANDALL · 2009 to 2013
$14.3M
UNC Center for Diabetes Translation Research to Reduce Health DisparitiesP30DK093002 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVIS, RICHARD M · 2011 to 2015
$3.0M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS 5U48-DP001911NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK093002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolicies that improve access to healthy, affordable foods may improve population health and reduce health disparities. In the United States most food access policy research focuses on urban communities even though residents of rural communities face disproportionately higher risk for nutrition-related chronic diseases compared to residents of urban communities. The purpose of this study was to (1) identify the factors associated with access to healthy, affordable food in rural communities in the United States; and (2) prioritize a meaningful and feasible rural food policy research agenda.

methodsThis study was conducted by the Rural Food Access Workgroup (RFAWG), a workgroup facilitated by the Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network. A national sample of academic and non-academic researchers, public health and cooperative extension practitioners, and other experts who focus on rural food access and economic development was invited to complete a concept mapping process that included brainstorming the factors that are associated with rural food access, sorting and organizing the factors into similar domains, and rating the importance of policies and research to address these factors. As a last step, RFAWG members convened to interpret the data and establish research recommendations.

resultsSeventy-five participants in the brainstorming exercise represented the following sectors: non-extension research (n = 27), non-extension program administration (n = 18), "other" (n = 14), policy advocacy (n = 10), and cooperative extension service (n = 6). The brainstorming exercise generated 90 distinct statements about factors associated with rural food access in the United States; these were sorted into 5 clusters. Go Zones were established for the factors that were rated highly as both a priority policy target and a priority for research. The highest ranked policy and research priorities include strategies designed to build economic viability in rural communities, improve access to federal food and nutrition assistance programs, improve food retail systems, and increase the personal food production capacity of rural residents. Respondents also prioritized the development of valid and reliable research methodologies to measure variables associated with rural food access.

conclusionsThis collaborative, trans-disciplinary, participatory process, created a map to guide and prioritize research about polices to improve healthy, affordable food access in rural communities.

Indexed as

Food SupplyHealth PolicyHealth Services ResearchCommunity Health ServicesHumansObesityProgram DevelopmentResearch DesignRural PopulationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24919425
PMCPMC4064519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.