A process evaluation of the Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial Olstad, Dana Lee, Ball, Kylie, Abbott, Gavin, McNaughton, Sarah A., Le, Ha N. D., Mhurchu, Cliona Ni, Pollard, Christina and Crawford, David A. 2016, A process evaluation of the Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial, International journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1186/s12966-016-0352-3. Attached Files Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads olstad-aprocessevaluation-2016.pdf Published version application/pdf 672.41KB 34 Title A process evaluation of the Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial Author(s) Olstad, Dana Lee Ball, Kylie orcid.org/0000-0003-2893-8415 Abbott, Gavin orcid.org/0000-0003-4014-0705 McNaughton, Sarah A. orcid.org/0000-0001-5936-9820 Le, Ha N. D. orcid.org/0000-0001-8279-8324 Mhurchu, Cliona Ni Pollard, Christina Crawford, David A. orcid.org/0000-0002-2467-7556 Journal name International journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity Volume number 13 Issue number 1 Start page 1 End page 15 Total pages 15 Publisher BioMed Central Place of publication London, Eng. Publication date 2016-02-24 ISSN 1479-5868 Keyword(s) process evaluation dietary behaviours fruits and vegetables carbonated beverages water food consumption food purchasing women supermarkets RE-AIM Summary BACKGROUND: Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) was a randomized controlled trial that operationalized a socioecological approach to population-level dietary behaviour change in a real-world supermarket setting. SHELf tested the impact of individual (skill-building), environmental (20 % price reductions), and combined (skill-building + 20 % price reductions) interventions on women's purchasing and consumption of fruits, vegetables, low-calorie carbonated beverages and water. This process evaluation investigated the reach, effectiveness, implementation, and maintenance of the SHELf interventions. METHODS: RE-AIM provided a conceptual framework to examine the processes underlying the impact of the interventions using data from participant surveys and objective sales data collected at baseline, post-intervention (3 months) and 6-months post-intervention. Fisher's exact, χ (2) and t-tests assessed differences in quantitative survey responses among groups. Adjusted linear regression examined the impact of self-reported intervention dose on food purchasing and consumption outcomes. Thematic analysis identified key themes within qualitative survey responses. RESULTS: Reach of the SHELf interventions to disadvantaged groups, and beyond study participants themselves, was moderate. Just over one-third of intervention participants indicated that the interventions were effective in changing the way they bought, cooked or consumed food (p < 0.001 compared to control), with no differences among intervention groups. Improvements in purchasing and consumption outcomes were greatest among those who received a higher intervention dose. Most notably, participants who said they accessed price reductions on fruits and vegetables purchased (519 g/week) and consumed (0.5 servings/day) more vegetables. The majority of participants said they accessed (82 %) and appreciated discounts on fruits and vegetables, while there was limited use (40 %) and appreciation of discounts on low-calorie carbonated beverages and water. Overall reported satisfaction with, use, and impact of the skill-building resources was moderate. Maintenance of newly acquired behaviours was limited, with less than half of participants making changes or using study-provided resources during the 6-month post-intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: SHELf's reach and perceived effectiveness were moderate. The interventions were more effective among those reporting greater engagement with them (an implementation-related construct). Maintenance of newly acquired behaviours proved challenging. Language eng DOI 10.1186/s12966-016-0352-3 Field of Research 111199 Nutrition and Dietetics not elsewhere classified Socio Economic Objective 920411 Nutrition HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal ERA Research output type C Journal article Grant ID NHMRC 594767 Copyright notice ©2016, The Authors Free to Read? Yes Use Rights Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30081935 Document type: Journal Article Collections: School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research Open Access Collection Related Links Link Description Connect to published version Go to link with your DU access privileges     Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au. Versions Version Filter Type Mon, 07 Mar 2016, 09:20:31 EST Mon, 07 Mar 2016, 09:21:47 EST Tue, 08 Mar 2016, 04:00:14 EST Wed, 09 Mar 2016, 07:37:50 EST Thu, 17 Mar 2016, 05:11:03 EST Fri, 15 Apr 2016, 09:23:00 EST Fri, 15 Apr 2016, 09:38:59 EST Mon, 18 Jul 2016, 16:01:39 EST Wed, 07 Sep 2016, 11:16:40 EST Wed, 14 Sep 2016, 12:16:57 EST Wed, 14 Sep 2016, 12:22:01 EST Wed, 09 Nov 2016, 11:43:50 EST Tue, 29 Nov 2016, 10:35:46 EST Thu, 19 Oct 2017, 09:43:43 EST Fri, 07 Sep 2018, 12:51:50 EST Filtered Full Citation counts:   Cited 9 times in TR Web of Science Cited 10 times in Scopus Search Google Scholar Access Statistics: 321 Abstract Views, 36 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics Created: Mon, 07 Mar 2016, 09:21:47 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.