Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35725448›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-authorized retailers received a low score using the Business Impact Assessment for Obesity and population-level nutrition (BIA-Obesity) tool.

Bailey Houghtaling, Tessa Englund, Susan Chen, Nila Pradhananga, Vivica I Kraak, Elena Serrano, Samantha M Harden, George C Davis, Sarah Misyak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Bailey HoughtalingSchool of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Louisiana State University (LSU) & LSU Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, 70803, US. bhoughtaling@agcenter.lsu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3301-7258
Tessa EnglundThurston Arthritis Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, US.
Susan ChenDepartment of Nutrition, Food Science, and Packaging, San José State University, San José, CA, 95192, US.
Nila PradhanangaSchool of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Louisiana State University (LSU) & LSU Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, 70803, US.
Vivica I KraakDepartment of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, US.
Elena SerranoDepartment of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, US.
Samantha M HardenDepartment of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, US.
George C DavisDepartment of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, US.
Sarah MisyakDepartment of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, US.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) supports Americans with lower income to purchase dietary products at authorized retailers. This research aimed to evaluate SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments in support of nutrition security and to examine differences between traditional grocers and nontraditional (e.g., convenience, drug, dollar) SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments.

methodsProminent United States (U.S.) SNAP-authorized retailers nationally and in two U.S. states (California and Virginia) were identified based on number of store locations (n = 61). Public information available in grey literature were reviewed and scored using the Business Impact Assessment for Obesity and population-level nutrition (BIA-Obesity) tool. SNAP-authorized retailers were classified as traditional (e.g., grocery) or nontraditional (e.g., non-grocery) retailers. Total BIA-Obesity from 0 to 615, representing low to optimal support) and category scores were calculated for corporate strategy, relationships with external organizations, product formulation, nutrition labeling, product and brand promotion, and product accessibility. Descriptive statistics were used to describe BIA-Obesity scores overall and by category. Mann-Whitney U was used to test for potential differences in median BIA-Obesity total scores between traditional and nontraditional SNAP-authorized retailers (a priori, p < 0.05).

resultsAverage total BIA-Obesity scores for SNAP-authorized retailers ranged from 0 to 112 (16.5 ± 23.3). Total BIA-Obesity scores for traditional SNAP-authorized retailers (32.7 ± 33.6; median 25) were higher than nontraditional SNAP-authorized retailer scores (11.2 ± 16; median 5) (p = 0.008). For BIA-Obesity categories, average scores were highest for the category relationships with external organizations (8.3 ± 10.3) and lowest for promotion practices (0.6 ± 2.1).

conclusionsResults of this research underscore a dearth of available evidence and substantial opportunity for improvement regarding SNAP-authorized retailer strategies to support nutrition security among Americans with lower income.

Indexed as

Food AssistanceCommerceFood SupplyHumansNutritional StatusObesityUnited StatesCorporate social responsibilityHealthy food retailPublic healthRetail food environmentSNAP

Identifiers

PMID35725448
PMCPMC9208119

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.