ArticleBMC public health2024
Early impact of a new food store intervention on health-related outcomes.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the early impact of a community-based food intervention, the Good Food Junction (GFJ), a full-service grocery store (September 2012 - January 2016) in a former food desert in Saskatoon, Canada. The hypothesis tested was that frequent shopping at the GFJ improved food security and selected health-related outcomes among shoppers, and the impact was moderated by socioeconomic factors. Longitudinal data were collected from 156 GFJ shoppers, on three occasions: 12-, 18-, and 24-months post-opening. Participants were grouped into three categories based on the frequency of shopping at the GFJ: low, moderate, and high. A generalized estimating equations approach was used for model building; moderating effects were tested. Participants were predominantly female, Indigenous, low-income, and had high school or some post-secondary education. The GFJ use was associated with household food security (OR for high and moderate frequency shoppers reporting less than a high school education were 1.81 and 1.06, respectively), and mental health (OR for high and moderate frequency shoppers reporting high income were 2.82 and 0.87, respectively) exhibiting a dose-response relationship, and indicated that these outcomes were significantly moderated by participants' socioeconomic factors. Shopping at the GFJ had a positive effect on food security and mental health, but to varying levels for those with low incomes, with less than high school or high school or better levels of education.
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.