Premium
An evaluation of restaurants in low‐income communities using the Nutrition Environment Measurement Survey for restaurants (NEMS‐R) (1019.8)
Author(s) -
Leone Ryan,
Hemmingson Kaitlyn,
Remley Daniel,
Zies Susan,
Kattelmann Kendra,
Li Yijing,
Kidd Tandalayo
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.28.1_supplement.1019.8
Subject(s) - signage , obesity , casual , environmental health , promotion (chess) , cafeteria , medicine , overweight , childhood obesity , quality (philosophy) , business , psychology , marketing , gerontology , advertising , political science , pathology , politics , law , philosophy , epistemology
As part of a multi‐state adolescent obesity project, we examined if signage, promotion, availability, quality and price of healthy food choices differed amongst sit‐down (SD), fast food (FF), or other restaurant (OT; i.e. fast casual) classifications. Restaurants (n=49) in three states were identified for audit using the validated Nutrition Environment Measurement Survey for restaurants (NEMS‐R). NEMS‐R evaluates the signage and promotion of healthy food items as well as their availability, quality and price. The standard NEMS‐R scoring rubric was utilized; higher scores indicate greater healthfulness and availability of menu items (range= ‐27 to 63). Establishments were excluded if they were not open to the general public or served predominantly to patrons over 21 years. Thirty‐one restaurants (SD=10, FF=6, OT=15) were assessed. Mean scores for SD, FF, and OT were 9.1 ±3.1, 20.8 ±19.4 and 11.3 ±17.8, respectively (min= ‐7, max= 53). Nutrition information was available at 10% of SD, 50% of FF and 60% of OT. Healthy items were promoted at 0% of SD, 17% of FF and 13% of OT. Approximately 5% of SD meals were healthy compared to 10% and 12% of FF and OT, respectively. Our results were not statistically significant warranting further study with larger samples and more statistical power. These data were easy to collect and provide an area of focus for obesity prevention efforts. Grant Funding Source : Supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) grant #2012‐68001‐19619 from the US