Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-vcb8f Total loading time: 0.779 Render date: 2022-09-29T02:56:38.667Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Comparing food desert residents with non-food desert residents on grocery shopping behaviours, diet and BMI: results from a propensity score analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2020

Rebecca C Woodruff*
Affiliation:
Emory Prevention Research Center, Behavioral Sciences and Health Education Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA30032, USA
Regine Haardörfer
Affiliation:
Emory Prevention Research Center, Behavioral Sciences and Health Education Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA30032, USA
Ilana G Raskind
Affiliation:
Emory Prevention Research Center, Behavioral Sciences and Health Education Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA30032, USA
April Hermstad
Affiliation:
Emory Prevention Research Center, Behavioral Sciences and Health Education Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA30032, USA
Michelle C Kegler
Affiliation:
Emory Prevention Research Center, Behavioral Sciences and Health Education Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA30032, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email rwoodr2@emory.edu
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine whether residence in a US Department of Agriculture-designated food desert is associated with perceived access to healthy foods, grocery shopping behaviours, diet and BMI among a national sample of primary food shoppers.

Design:

Data for the present study came from a self-administered cross-sectional survey administered in 2015. Residential addresses of respondents were geocoded to determine whether their census tract of residence was a designated food desert or not. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted regression was used to assess whether residence in a food desert was associated with dependent variables of interest.

Setting:

USA.

Participants:

Of 4942 adult survey respondents, residential addresses of 75·0 % (n 3705) primary food shoppers were included in the analysis.

Results:

Residence in a food desert (11·1 %, n 411) was not significantly associated with perceived access to healthy foods, most grocery shopping behaviours or dietary behaviour, but was significantly associated with primarily shopping at a superstore or supercentre v. a large grocery store (OR = 1·32; 95 % CI 1·02, 1·71; P = 0·03) and higher BMI (b = 1·14; 95 % CI 0·36, 1·93; P = 0·004).

Conclusions:

Results suggest that food desert residents shop at different food stores and have higher BMI than non-food desert residents.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
© The Authors 2020

Limited access to healthy food retailers may contribute to the high prevalence of obesity and chronic disease in the USA(Reference McLeroy, Bibeau and Steckler1). Supermarkets and grocery stores are typically considered retailers of healthy foods, as these stores have been shown to sell a larger selection of affordably priced, healthier food items compared with smaller food stores(Reference Glanz, Sallis and Saelens2). However, multiple systematic reviews have documented disparities in access to healthy food retailers(Reference Walker, Keane and Burke3,Reference Larson, Story and Nelson4) . According to the US Department of Agriculture, 6·2 % of the US population resides in a census tract that is classified as a food desert, meaning it is both low-income and has limited access to healthy food retailers(5). Prior systematic reviews have found mixed results regarding the association between various measures of access to healthy food retailers and dietary behaviour(Reference Caspi, Sorensen and Subramanian6) and weight(Reference Cobb, Appel and Franco7), although no known studies have examined variation in these outcomes by food desert status at a national scale. One prior study from South Carolina suggests that such differences may exist(Reference Sohi, Bell and Liu8) and could be explored on a national scale. Such research may assist in interpreting descriptive analyses of the food shopping and dietary behaviours of food desert residents(Reference Dubowitz, Zenk and Ghosh-Dastidar9,Reference Ma, Sharpe and Bell10) and assist public health practitioners with targeting interventions to improve local food environments as a chronic disease prevention strategy.

Methods

The current secondary analysis used data from the National Home Environment Survey, an online survey commissioned by the Emory Prevention Research Center to characterize the home food environments of US adults. The survey was administered in autumn 2015 by Lightspeed (http://www.lightspeedresearch.com/), an online market research firm which maintains a panel of over 5·5 million respondents in forty-five countries.

Eligible participants were adults aged 18–75 years living in the USA and who were able to read English. The study used recruitment quotas to ensure the demographic, socio-economic and geographic distribution of the sample reflected that of the overall US population. Matching variables used for the recruitment quotas included age, gender, race/ethnicity, geographic region and annual household income. Lightspeed identified panellists meeting eligibility criteria and sent survey invitations by email. Participants who provided informed consent and completed the 30 min survey received compensation provided by Lightspeed. A total of 12 396 individuals consented to participate in the study; reasons for not completing the survey included not meeting a recruitment quota (n 3811, 30·7 %), discontinuation of the survey (n 2994, 24·2 %) and termination by Lightspeed due to in-survey quality violations (n 649, 5·2 %).

Of the 4942 respondents, 75·0 % were included in the current analysis; participants were excluded if they reported no involvement with grocery shopping for the household (16·1 %), reported fruit and vegetable intake that exceeded three times the standard deviation added to the interquartile range (3·9 %), and inability to geocode the residential address to a census tract to determine its food desert status (2·1 %). Less than 3 % of the sample was excluded due to missing data; missingness was associated with younger age, male sex, Asian race, single or widowed/separated/divorced marital status, earning in the $US 15 000–49 000 range, living with others, not being on food stamps, and living in a small town or suburban area. The Emory University Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures.

Residence in a food desert was determined by geocoding participants’ residential addresses using Google Earth Pro, joining them to census tracts in ArcMap 10.5.1 (ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10) and matching them to the US Department of Agriculture’s Food Access Research Atlas. This Atlas designates census tracts as food deserts if they are low-income (poverty rate ≥20 % or median family income <80 % of either the state or metropolitan-area median income) and low-access (≥500 people or 33 % of population living either 1·61 km (1 mile; urban) or 16·1 km (10 miles; rural) from the nearest supermarket, supercentre or large grocery store)(5).

The survey was self-administered online and included seventy-five questions and periodic quality check questions. Involvement with grocery shopping was determined by asking who the primary food shopper for the household is. Respondents were included in the analysis if they indicated that they were the primary food shopper, that they take turns with someone else or go with someone else; those who indicated that their spouse/partner, parent/parent-in-law or someone else was the primary shopper were excluded.

Perceived access to healthy foods was measured by summing participants’ responses to six items assessing quality, selection, and ease of purchasing fruits and vegetables and low-fat products in their neighbourhood on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’, range = 6–30)(Reference Echeverria, Diez-Roux and Link11).

Store type was assessed with a single item asking participants to think about the place where the primary food shopper(s) for the household shops most frequently for groceries and to indicate the store type. Response options were ‘large chain grocery store’, ‘smaller grocery store’, ‘superstore or supercentre’ (e.g. Wal-Mart or Target), ‘warehouse club store’ (e.g. Sam’s Club or Costco), ‘dollar store’, ‘convenience store with or without a gas station attached’ (e.g. 7-Eleven or mini-market), ‘farmers’ market or co-op’ or ‘specialty store’ (e.g. an ethnic specialty store, meat market, seafood market, greengrocer or bakery). Frequency of grocery shopping was assessed by asking the respondent how many times per month the primary food shopper usually shops at that store. Responses were categorized into >4 times/month, 4 times/month or <4 times/month for analyses. Distance from store to home was measured by asking, ‘About how many miles is this store from your home?’ Respondents recorded an open integer representing the number of miles. Amount spent per trip was assessed by asking how much the primary food shopper(s) usually spend on food each time they shop at the store, including all methods of payment (e.g. cash, electronic benefit transfer/food stamps, debit/credit card). Response options were <$US 25, $US 25–49·99, $US 50–74·99, $US 75–99·99, $US 100–149·99, $US 150–199·99 or ≥$US 200.

Fruit and vegetable consumption was measured using an eighteen-item screener asking about frequency and quantity of consumption of nine type of fruits and vegetables(Reference Thompson, Subar and Smith12). Dietary fat intake as a percentage of total daily energy intake was estimated using a brief screener assessing frequency of consumption per week of fifteen food items(Reference Thompson, Midthune and Subar13). BMI (kg/m2) was calculated from self-reported height and weight.

Propensity score analysis using inverse probability of treatment-weighted regression was the analytic approach. This method is commonly used in observational research to at least partially account for systematic differences between the exposed and unexposed groups due to non-random assignment mechanisms by creating a pseudo-population that is better balanced on observed characteristics linked to group membership(Reference Austin14). Propensity scores were generated by performing the regression of an indicator variable for residence in a food desert or not v. the following theoretical confounders: age, gender, race, marital status, employment status, education, income, indicator variables for living alone and presence of children in the home, car ownership, receipt of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and rurality. The inverse of the propensity scores (i.e. inverse probability of treatment weights) were used as weighting variables to account for systematic differences in food desert residents and non-food desert residents. Data were analysed with the statistical software package SAS version 9.4 using the GENMOD, SURVEYREG and SURVEYLOGISITIC procedures to account for these weights and produce robust standard errors.

Results

Relatively few respondents lived in a food desert (11·1 %; Table 1). The sample tended to be middle-aged (mean age = 45·5 (sd 15·18) years), female (57·0 %) and White (66·7 %). Most were employed for wages or self-employed (54·8 %) and had a college degree or higher (49·4 %). The majority (73·6 %) lived with at least one other person in the home and 34·8 % had at least one child living at home. Just over 14 % of respondents reported receiving SNAP benefits. Most lived in suburban (42·6 %) or urban (28·2 %) areas, and the majority owned a car (90·9 %).

Table 1 Demographic, socio-economic and geographic characteristics of primary food shoppers in the USA by food desert status, 2015

SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; ref., reference category.

Bivariate associations between residence in a food desert and outcomes were generated using unadjusted linear, binary logistic and multinomial logistic regression models, depending on the dependent variable type.

In bivariate analyses prior to applying the inverse probability of treatment weights, food desert residents were more likely to be African American (P < 0·0001), to be unemployed (P = 0·002), more likely to have some college (P = 0·006) or high school or less (P = 0·004), to report lower household income levels and to report receiving SNAP benefits (P < 0·0001). Food desert residents were less likely to report living in suburban areas (P < 0·0001). After applying inverse probability of treatment weights, there were no significant differences between food desert and non-food desert residents in demographic, socio-economic or geographic characteristics (Table 1).

The majority of respondents reported primarily shopping at a large grocery store (53·5 %) or superstore/supercentre (27·3 %; Table 2). Few respondents reported primarily shopping at a dollar store or convenience store (1·2 %). The primary store was located a mean of 8·6 (sd 12·10) km (5·4 (sd 7·52) miles) from the respondent’s home. Most respondents shopped for groceries fewer than 4 times/month (35·2 %) and spent $US 50–99·99 each trip (37·1 %). Mean perceived access to healthy foods score was 22·1 (sd 6·25). Respondents reported eating a mean of 2·5 (sd 2·02) daily servings of fruits and vegetables, consumed a mean of 34·6 (sd 4·64) % of their total daily energy intake from dietary fat and had a mean BMI of 27·8 (sd 6·84) kg/m2.

Table 2 Perceived access to healthy foods, grocery shopping practices, diet and BMI stratified by residence in a food desert among primary food shoppers in the USA, 2015

Ref., reference category.

P values were generated by performing the regression of each dependent variable v. an indicator variable for residence in a food desert or not. Linear regression was used for the following outcomes: perceived access to healthy foods, fruit and vegetable intake, dietary fat intake and BMI. Poisson regression was used for distance from home to primary store. Multinomial logistic regression was used for primary store type, frequency of grocery shopping and dollar amount spent per shopping trip. Robust standard errors were used for the weighted regression analyses to account for the inverse probability of treatment weights.

* 1 mile ≈ 1·61 km.

The categories for farmers’ market, co-op or specialty store and dollar store or convenience store were omitted from the models due to sparse data.

In inverse probability of treatment-weighted models, food desert residents were more likely to shop at a superstore or supercentre v. a large grocery store (OR = 1·32; 95 % CI 1·02, 1·71; P = 0·03) and had higher BMI (b = 1·14; 95 % CI 0·36, 1·93; P = 0·004) relative to non-food desert residents (Table 2). Food desert residents did not report significantly different perceived access to healthy foods, frequency of grocery shopping, distance from home to primary store, dollar amount spent per shopping trip, fruit and vegetable intake or dietary fat intake, relative to non-residents.

Discussion

The present study found that although residence in a food desert was significantly associated with the most frequently used grocery store type and BMI, it was not significantly associated with perceived access to healthy foods, other grocery shopping practices or dietary behaviour among primary food shoppers in the USA, after accounting for systematic differences in the characteristics of the populations who live in food deserts v. non-food deserts. This finding is surprising, given that it contradicts social ecological frameworks of health promotion which suggest that community-level factors are important determinants of health behaviours(Reference McLeroy, Bibeau and Steckler1). Additionally, these findings contradict those from similar studies which found that food shopping behaviours vary by community-level access to healthy foods(Reference Sohi, Bell and Liu8) and food security(Reference Ma, Liese and Hibbert15), although these studies were conducted among specific geographic areas and are not directly comparable to this national study.

Recently, critiques of the food desert concept have emerged in the peer-reviewed literature(Reference Widener16Reference Hill18). These articles suggest that determining access to healthy foods in geographic areas defined by arbitrary administrative boundaries may overlook other important dimensions of access, including the quantity, quality and affordability of products sold within these stores and local community-led solutions to increase access to healthy foods(Reference Krukowski, McSweeney and Sparks19). Replications of the present study using other innovative approaches to measuring the community food environment, including the use of activity spaces, multidimensional measures of access that account for in-store food environments and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s healthier food retail tracts, would advance this area of research.

Strengths of the present study include that it is the first known analysis to use residence in a food desert as an independent variable among a national sample, as well as the first known application of propensity score analysis within this content area. Limitations include that the data are cross-sectional, limiting causal inference, and that US adults without Internet access would have been systematically excluded from this study. Additionally, as Lightspeed’s methods of recruiting its underlying panel are unavailable, we have limited ability to conclude that these results represent or generalize to the broader US population. Despite these limitations, these findings add to the growing literature assessing the relationship between access to healthy food retailers and chronic disease-related outcomes.

Conclusions

Results suggest that food desert residents shop at different food stores and have higher BMI than non-food desert residents, although there was no evidence to support that the two groups differed on other grocery shopping characteristics or dietary behaviours. Future research using innovative, multidimensional conceptualizations of access to healthy foods are needed to better understand how community food environments influence health.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank the participants in this study. Financial support: This study was funded by the Dean’s Office at the Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, which had no additional role in the design, analysis or writing of this article. Conflict of interest: None. No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper. Authorship: R.C.W. conceptualized the research question, conducted the analyses and authored the paper. R.H. assisted with data analysis. I.G.R. and A.H. assisted with conceptualizing the study, interpreting the results and revising the manuscript. M.K. conceptualized and oversaw the study, assisted with interpreting the results and revising the manuscript. Ethics of human subject participation: This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human participants were approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

References

McLeroy, KR, Bibeau, D, Steckler, Aet al. (1988) An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Behav 15, 351377.Google ScholarPubMed
Glanz, K, Sallis, JF, Saelens, BEet al. (2007) Nutrition Environment Measures Survey in stores (NEMS-S): development and evaluation. Am J Prev Med 32, 282289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, RE, Keane, CR & Burke, JG (2010) Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: a review of food deserts literature. Health Place 16, 876884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson, NI, Story, MT & Nelson, MC (2009) Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to healthy foods in the US. Am J Prev Med 36, 7481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture (n.d.) Food Access Research Atlas. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/ (accessed May 2018).Google Scholar
Caspi, CE, Sorensen, G, Subramanian, Set al. (2012) The local food environment and diet: a systematic review. Health Place 18, 11721187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cobb, LK, Appel, LJ, Franco, Met al. (2015) The relationship of the local food environment with obesity: a systematic review of methods, study quality, and results. Obesity (Silver Spring) 23, 13311344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sohi, I, Bell, BA, Liu, Jet al. (2014) Differences in food environment perceptions and spatial attributes of food shopping between residents of low and high food access areas. J Nutr Educ Behav 46, 241249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubowitz, T, Zenk, SN, Ghosh-Dastidar, Bet al. (2015) Healthy food access for urban food desert residents: examination of the food environment, food purchasing practices, diet and BMI. Public Health Nutr 18, 22202230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, X, Sharpe, PA, Bell, BAet al. (2018) Food acquisition and shopping patterns among residents of low-income and low-access communities in South Carolina. J Acad Nutr Diet 118, 18441854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Echeverria, SE, Diez-Roux, AV & Link, BG (2004) Reliability of self-reported neighborhood characteristics. J Urban Health 81, 682701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, FE, Subar, AF, Smith, AFet al. (2002) Fruit and vegetable assessment: performance of 2 new short instruments and a food frequency questionnaire. J Am Diet Assoc 102, 17641772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, FE, Midthune, D, Subar, AFet al. (2004) Performance of a short tool to assess dietary intakes of fruits and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre. Public Health Nutr 7, 10971106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 46, 399424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, X, Liese, AD, Hibbert, Jet al. (2017) The association between food security and store-specific and overall food shopping behaviors. J Acad Nutr Diet 117, 19311940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widener, MJ (2018) Spatial access to food: retiring the food desert metaphor. Physiol Behav 193, 257260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadler, RC, Gilliland, JA & Arku, GJG (2016) Theoretical issues in the ‘food desert’ debate and ways forward. GeoJournal 81, 443455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, AB (2017) Critical inquiry into Detroit’s ‘food desert’ metaphor. Food Foodways 25, 228246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krukowski, RA, McSweeney, J, Sparks, Cet al. (2012) Qualitative study of influences on food store choice. Appetite 59, 510516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Demographic, socio-economic and geographic characteristics of primary food shoppers in the USA by food desert status, 2015

Figure 1

Table 2 Perceived access to healthy foods, grocery shopping practices, diet and BMI stratified by residence in a food desert among primary food shoppers in the USA, 2015

You have Access
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparing food desert residents with non-food desert residents on grocery shopping behaviours, diet and BMI: results from a propensity score analysis
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Comparing food desert residents with non-food desert residents on grocery shopping behaviours, diet and BMI: results from a propensity score analysis
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Comparing food desert residents with non-food desert residents on grocery shopping behaviours, diet and BMI: results from a propensity score analysis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *