Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2016
A process evaluation of the Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Pricing Strategies to Encourage Availability, Purchase, and Consumption of Healthy Foods and Beverages: A Systematic Review.Preventing chronic disease · 2017Pooled it
- Process evaluation of the implementation of a decision support system to prevent and treat disease-related malnutrition in a hospital setting.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2021Trial
- The impact of financial incentives on participants' food purchasing patterns in a supermarket-based randomized controlled trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Real-life experiments in supermarkets to encourage healthy dietary-related behaviours: opportunities, challenges and lessons learned.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Article
- Neighborhood Food Environment Associated with Cardiometabolic Health among Predominately Low-income, Urban, Black Women.Ethnicity & disease · 2021Article
- Examination of how food environment and psychological factors interact in their relationship with dietary behaviours: test of a cross-sectional model.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2019Article
- WAVE~Ripples for Change Obesity Two-Year Intervention in High School Soccer Players: Process Evaluation, Best Practices, and Youth Engagement.Nutrients · 2018Article
- Evaluation of a community-based, family focused healthy weights initiative using the RE-AIM framework.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2018Article
- Evaluating the impact of a walking program in a disadvantaged area: using the RE-AIM framework by mixed methods.BMC public health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.