Premium
Healthy Store Programs and WIC, but not SNAP, are Associated with Corner Store Healthfulness
Author(s) -
DeWeese Robin,
Todd Michael,
Karpyn Allison,
Yedidia Michael,
Kennedy Michelle,
Bruening Meg,
Wharton Christopher,
OhriVachaspati Punam
Publication year - 2016
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.30.1_supplement.674.30
Subject(s) - supplemental nutrition assistance program , healthy food , snap , audit , medicine , grocery store , environmental health , portion size , demography , gerontology , business , food insecurity , advertising , agriculture , accounting , computer science , geography , food security , food science , chemistry , computer graphics (images) , archaeology , sociology
In response to residents’ lack of access to healthy foods, many low‐income communities are instituting local healthy corner store programs. Some stores also participate in the United States Department of Agriculture's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This study compared the healthfulness of offerings at stores participating in a local healthy store program, WIC, and/or SNAP to those of similar non‐participating stores, using two different assessment tools. Methods Based on store audits conducted in 315 New Jersey corner stores, healthy food availability scores were calculated using an adapted version of the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey for Corner Stores (NEMS‐CS) and a short‐form corner store audit tool (SCAT). Multivariate linear regression was used to examine associations between program participation and scores on both instruments. Results Adjusting for store and block group characteristics, stores participating in the local healthy store program had significantly higher SCAT scores than did non‐participating stores (upgraded: M = 3.18, 95% CI 2.65–3.71; non‐upgraded: M = 2.52, 95% CI 2.32–2.73); scores on the adapted NEMS‐CS did not differ (upgraded: M = 12.8, 95% CI 11.6–14.1; non‐upgraded: M = 12.5, 95% CI 12.0–13.0). WIC‐participating stores had significantly higher scores compared to non‐participating stores on both tools. Stores participating in SNAP only (and not in WIC) scored significantly lower on both instruments compared to non‐SNAP stores. Conclusions WIC‐participating and non‐SNAP corner stores had higher healthfulness scores on both assessment tools. Only the SCAT was useful in discriminating between upgraded and non‐upgraded stores. Support or Funding Information This research was funded by a National Institute of Food and Agriculture predoctoral dissertation fellowship (20146701122279) and by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1R01HD071583‐01A1).