You are not logged in.
Openly accessible

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 1

Title A process evaluation of the Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial
Author(s) Olstad, Dana Lee
Ball, Kylie
Abbott, Gavin
McNaughton, Sarah A.
Le, Ha N. D.
Mhurchu, Cliona Ni
Pollard, Christina
Crawford, David A.
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
Copyright notice ©2016, The Authors
Free to Read? Yes
Use Rights Creative Commons Attribution licence
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30081935

Connect to link resolver
 
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
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 103 Abstract Views, 3 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.