ArticleJournal of nutrition education and behavior2025
Food Access Matters: Quantifying the Price Differential Across Four Major Food Retailers and a Mobile Market Aiming to Improve Affordable Nutritious Food Access.
Article in Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo understand how food prices differed between physical and online grocery stores and a well-established mobile market in a Midwest metropolitan area of the US.
methodsFour major grocery retailers nearest to 8 subsidized apartments were identified. Two stores from each retailer were randomly selected (n = 8), and prices for 67 size-standardized foods were collected in person and online. An analysis of variance test assessed mean differences in cart prices across stores relative to the Twin Cities Mobile Market (TCMM).
resultsRelative to TCMM cart prices, cart prices were significantly higher at physical and online Walmart (21% to 22% higher, P < 0.001), Target (29% to 30%, P < 0.001), and Cub Foods (62% to 63%, P < 0.001) stores and online Aldi stores (14%, P = 0.02). Aldi physical store prices were not statistically significantly different (P = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Results require cautious interpretation given the low number of observations per retailer; however, findings suggest TCMM provides foods at a lower cost than most nearby grocery stores, providing 1 example of full-service mobile market pricing. Future research is needed to assess mobile market pricing structures in other locations across the US.
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.