Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26912177›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2016

A process evaluation of the Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial.

Dana Lee Olstad, Kylie Ball, Gavin Abbott, Sarah A McNaughton, Ha N D Le, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Christina Pollard, David A Crawford

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2021
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluation of a community-based, family focused healthy weights initiative using the RE-AIM framework.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2018
    Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Dana Lee OlstadCentre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. dana.olstad@deakin.edu.au.
Kylie BallCentre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. kylie.ball@deakin.edu.au.
Gavin AbbottCentre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. gavin.abbott@deakin.edu.au.
Sarah A McNaughtonCentre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. sarah.mcnaughton@deakin.edu.au.
Ha N D LeDeakin Health Economics, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. ha.le@deakin.edu.au.
Cliona Ni MhurchuNational Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, Tamaki Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1072, New Zealand. c.nimhurchu@auckland.ac.nz.
Christina PollardSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia. c.pollard@curtin.edu.au.
David A CrawfordCentre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. david.crawford@deakin.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSupermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) was a randomized controlled trial that operationalized a socioecological approach to population-level dietary behaviour change in a real-world supermarket setting. SHELf tested the impact of individual (skill-building), environmental (20% price reductions), and combined (skill-building + 20% price reductions) interventions on women's purchasing and consumption of fruits, vegetables, low-calorie carbonated beverages and water. This process evaluation investigated the reach, effectiveness, implementation, and maintenance of the SHELf interventions.

methodsRE-AIM provided a conceptual framework to examine the processes underlying the impact of the interventions using data from participant surveys and objective sales data collected at baseline, post-intervention (3 months) and 6-months post-intervention. Fisher's exact, χ (2) and t-tests assessed differences in quantitative survey responses among groups. Adjusted linear regression examined the impact of self-reported intervention dose on food purchasing and consumption outcomes. Thematic analysis identified key themes within qualitative survey responses.

resultsReach of the SHELf interventions to disadvantaged groups, and beyond study participants themselves, was moderate. Just over one-third of intervention participants indicated that the interventions were effective in changing the way they bought, cooked or consumed food (p < 0.001 compared to control), with no differences among intervention groups. Improvements in purchasing and consumption outcomes were greatest among those who received a higher intervention dose. Most notably, participants who said they accessed price reductions on fruits and vegetables purchased (519 g/week) and consumed (0.5 servings/day) more vegetables. The majority of participants said they accessed (82%) and appreciated discounts on fruits and vegetables, while there was limited use (40%) and appreciation of discounts on low-calorie carbonated beverages and water. Overall reported satisfaction with, use, and impact of the skill-building resources was moderate. Maintenance of newly acquired behaviours was limited, with less than half of participants making changes or using study-provided resources during the 6-month post-intervention period.

conclusionsSHELf's reach and perceived effectiveness were moderate. The interventions were more effective among those reporting greater engagement with them (an implementation-related construct). Maintenance of newly acquired behaviours proved challenging.

trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN39432901 .

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorHealth BehaviorAdolescentAdultCarbonated BeveragesCommerceDietFemaleFruitHumansMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationVegetablesWaterYoung AdultWater

Identifiers

PMID26912177
PMCPMC4766691

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.