Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program tool

Background The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) supports Americans with lower income to purchase dietary products at authorized retailers. This research aimed to evaluate SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments in support of nutrition security and to examine differences be...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC public health 2022-06, Vol.22 (1)
Hauptverfasser: Houghtaling, Bailey, Englund, Tessa, Chen, Susan, Pradhananga, Nila, Kraak, Vivica I, Serrano, Elena, Harden, Samantha M, Davis, George C, Misyak, Sarah
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page
container_title BMC public health
container_volume 22
creator Houghtaling, Bailey
Englund, Tessa
Chen, Susan
Pradhananga, Nila
Kraak, Vivica I
Serrano, Elena
Harden, Samantha M
Davis, George C
Misyak, Sarah
description Background The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) supports Americans with lower income to purchase dietary products at authorized retailers. This research aimed to evaluate SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments in support of nutrition security and to examine differences between traditional grocers and nontraditional (e.g., convenience, drug, dollar) SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments. Methods Prominent United States (U.S.) SNAP-authorized retailers nationally and in two U.S. states (California and Virginia) were identified based on number of store locations (n = 61). Public information available in grey literature were reviewed and scored using the Business Impact Assessment for Obesity and population-level nutrition (BIA-Obesity) tool. SNAP-authorized retailers were classified as traditional (e.g., grocery) or nontraditional (e.g., non-grocery) retailers. Total BIA-Obesity from 0 to 615, representing low to optimal support) and category scores were calculated for corporate strategy, relationships with external organizations, product formulation, nutrition labeling, product and brand promotion, and product accessibility. Descriptive statistics were used to describe BIA-Obesity scores overall and by category. Mann-Whitney U was used to test for potential differences in median BIA-Obesity total scores between traditional and nontraditional SNAP-authorized retailers (a priori, p < 0.05). Results Average total BIA-Obesity scores for SNAP-authorized retailers ranged from 0 to 112 (16.5 [+ or -] 23.3). Total BIA-Obesity scores for traditional SNAP-authorized retailers (32.7 [+ or -] 33.6; median 25) were higher than nontraditional SNAP-authorized retailer scores (11.2 [+ or -] 16; median 5) (p = 0.008). For BIA-Obesity categories, average scores were highest for the category relationships with external organizations (8.3 [+ or -] 10.3) and lowest for promotion practices (0.6 [+ or -] 2.1). Conclusions Results of this research underscore a dearth of available evidence and substantial opportunity for improvement regarding SNAP-authorized retailer strategies to support nutrition security among Americans with lower income. Keywords: SNAP, Public health, Corporate social responsibility, Retail food environment, Healthy food retail
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s12889-022-13624-9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A707802109</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A707802109</galeid><sourcerecordid>A707802109</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g679-164906b3a56178bf8ebdd259d752cc6cecc2e34679e8c3cc91e9ddf05aa66ff93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptjUtLxDAUhYMoOI7-AVcF16lJ2ryWZVBHGFRw9kN6c1MifQxN5v9b0cUs5CzO5fCdewi556zk3KjHxIUxljIhKK-UqKm9ICtea05FLc3l2X1NblL6YoxrI8WKlJ-n47HHAcfs-uLtlOeY4zQWTUoxZTcCFh_z1M1uKPI09bfkKrg-4d2fr8n--Wm_2dLd-8vrptnRTmlLuaotU23lpFpm2mCw9V5I67UUAAoQQGBVLygaqAAsR-t9YNI5pUKw1Zo8_L7tXI-HOIYpzw6GmODQaKYNE5z9UOU_1CKPQ4RpxBCX_KzwDXsAVW0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program tool</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Houghtaling, Bailey ; Englund, Tessa ; Chen, Susan ; Pradhananga, Nila ; Kraak, Vivica I ; Serrano, Elena ; Harden, Samantha M ; Davis, George C ; Misyak, Sarah</creator><creatorcontrib>Houghtaling, Bailey ; Englund, Tessa ; Chen, Susan ; Pradhananga, Nila ; Kraak, Vivica I ; Serrano, Elena ; Harden, Samantha M ; Davis, George C ; Misyak, Sarah</creatorcontrib><description>Background The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) supports Americans with lower income to purchase dietary products at authorized retailers. This research aimed to evaluate SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments in support of nutrition security and to examine differences between traditional grocers and nontraditional (e.g., convenience, drug, dollar) SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments. Methods Prominent United States (U.S.) SNAP-authorized retailers nationally and in two U.S. states (California and Virginia) were identified based on number of store locations (n = 61). Public information available in grey literature were reviewed and scored using the Business Impact Assessment for Obesity and population-level nutrition (BIA-Obesity) tool. SNAP-authorized retailers were classified as traditional (e.g., grocery) or nontraditional (e.g., non-grocery) retailers. Total BIA-Obesity from 0 to 615, representing low to optimal support) and category scores were calculated for corporate strategy, relationships with external organizations, product formulation, nutrition labeling, product and brand promotion, and product accessibility. Descriptive statistics were used to describe BIA-Obesity scores overall and by category. Mann-Whitney U was used to test for potential differences in median BIA-Obesity total scores between traditional and nontraditional SNAP-authorized retailers (a priori, p &lt; 0.05). Results Average total BIA-Obesity scores for SNAP-authorized retailers ranged from 0 to 112 (16.5 [+ or -] 23.3). Total BIA-Obesity scores for traditional SNAP-authorized retailers (32.7 [+ or -] 33.6; median 25) were higher than nontraditional SNAP-authorized retailer scores (11.2 [+ or -] 16; median 5) (p = 0.008). For BIA-Obesity categories, average scores were highest for the category relationships with external organizations (8.3 [+ or -] 10.3) and lowest for promotion practices (0.6 [+ or -] 2.1). Conclusions Results of this research underscore a dearth of available evidence and substantial opportunity for improvement regarding SNAP-authorized retailer strategies to support nutrition security among Americans with lower income. Keywords: SNAP, Public health, Corporate social responsibility, Retail food environment, Healthy food retail</description><identifier>ISSN: 1471-2458</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-2458</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13624-9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Control ; Evaluation ; Obesity ; Prevention ; Public health ; Retail industry</subject><ispartof>BMC public health, 2022-06, Vol.22 (1)</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Houghtaling, Bailey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Englund, Tessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pradhananga, Nila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kraak, Vivica I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serrano, Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harden, Samantha M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, George C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misyak, Sarah</creatorcontrib><title>Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program tool</title><title>BMC public health</title><description>Background The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) supports Americans with lower income to purchase dietary products at authorized retailers. This research aimed to evaluate SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments in support of nutrition security and to examine differences between traditional grocers and nontraditional (e.g., convenience, drug, dollar) SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments. Methods Prominent United States (U.S.) SNAP-authorized retailers nationally and in two U.S. states (California and Virginia) were identified based on number of store locations (n = 61). Public information available in grey literature were reviewed and scored using the Business Impact Assessment for Obesity and population-level nutrition (BIA-Obesity) tool. SNAP-authorized retailers were classified as traditional (e.g., grocery) or nontraditional (e.g., non-grocery) retailers. Total BIA-Obesity from 0 to 615, representing low to optimal support) and category scores were calculated for corporate strategy, relationships with external organizations, product formulation, nutrition labeling, product and brand promotion, and product accessibility. Descriptive statistics were used to describe BIA-Obesity scores overall and by category. Mann-Whitney U was used to test for potential differences in median BIA-Obesity total scores between traditional and nontraditional SNAP-authorized retailers (a priori, p &lt; 0.05). Results Average total BIA-Obesity scores for SNAP-authorized retailers ranged from 0 to 112 (16.5 [+ or -] 23.3). Total BIA-Obesity scores for traditional SNAP-authorized retailers (32.7 [+ or -] 33.6; median 25) were higher than nontraditional SNAP-authorized retailer scores (11.2 [+ or -] 16; median 5) (p = 0.008). For BIA-Obesity categories, average scores were highest for the category relationships with external organizations (8.3 [+ or -] 10.3) and lowest for promotion practices (0.6 [+ or -] 2.1). Conclusions Results of this research underscore a dearth of available evidence and substantial opportunity for improvement regarding SNAP-authorized retailer strategies to support nutrition security among Americans with lower income. Keywords: SNAP, Public health, Corporate social responsibility, Retail food environment, Healthy food retail</description><subject>Control</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Obesity</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Retail industry</subject><issn>1471-2458</issn><issn>1471-2458</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNptjUtLxDAUhYMoOI7-AVcF16lJ2ryWZVBHGFRw9kN6c1MifQxN5v9b0cUs5CzO5fCdewi556zk3KjHxIUxljIhKK-UqKm9ICtea05FLc3l2X1NblL6YoxrI8WKlJ-n47HHAcfs-uLtlOeY4zQWTUoxZTcCFh_z1M1uKPI09bfkKrg-4d2fr8n--Wm_2dLd-8vrptnRTmlLuaotU23lpFpm2mCw9V5I67UUAAoQQGBVLygaqAAsR-t9YNI5pUKw1Zo8_L7tXI-HOIYpzw6GmODQaKYNE5z9UOU_1CKPQ4RpxBCX_KzwDXsAVW0</recordid><startdate>20220620</startdate><enddate>20220620</enddate><creator>Houghtaling, Bailey</creator><creator>Englund, Tessa</creator><creator>Chen, Susan</creator><creator>Pradhananga, Nila</creator><creator>Kraak, Vivica I</creator><creator>Serrano, Elena</creator><creator>Harden, Samantha M</creator><creator>Davis, George C</creator><creator>Misyak, Sarah</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>20220620</creationdate><title>Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program tool</title><author>Houghtaling, Bailey ; Englund, Tessa ; Chen, Susan ; Pradhananga, Nila ; Kraak, Vivica I ; Serrano, Elena ; Harden, Samantha M ; Davis, George C ; Misyak, Sarah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g679-164906b3a56178bf8ebdd259d752cc6cecc2e34679e8c3cc91e9ddf05aa66ff93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Control</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Obesity</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Retail industry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Houghtaling, Bailey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Englund, Tessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pradhananga, Nila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kraak, Vivica I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serrano, Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harden, Samantha M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, George C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misyak, Sarah</creatorcontrib><jtitle>BMC public health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Houghtaling, Bailey</au><au>Englund, Tessa</au><au>Chen, Susan</au><au>Pradhananga, Nila</au><au>Kraak, Vivica I</au><au>Serrano, Elena</au><au>Harden, Samantha M</au><au>Davis, George C</au><au>Misyak, Sarah</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program tool</atitle><jtitle>BMC public health</jtitle><date>2022-06-20</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><issn>1471-2458</issn><eissn>1471-2458</eissn><abstract>Background The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) supports Americans with lower income to purchase dietary products at authorized retailers. This research aimed to evaluate SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments in support of nutrition security and to examine differences between traditional grocers and nontraditional (e.g., convenience, drug, dollar) SNAP-authorized retailers' public commitments. Methods Prominent United States (U.S.) SNAP-authorized retailers nationally and in two U.S. states (California and Virginia) were identified based on number of store locations (n = 61). Public information available in grey literature were reviewed and scored using the Business Impact Assessment for Obesity and population-level nutrition (BIA-Obesity) tool. SNAP-authorized retailers were classified as traditional (e.g., grocery) or nontraditional (e.g., non-grocery) retailers. Total BIA-Obesity from 0 to 615, representing low to optimal support) and category scores were calculated for corporate strategy, relationships with external organizations, product formulation, nutrition labeling, product and brand promotion, and product accessibility. Descriptive statistics were used to describe BIA-Obesity scores overall and by category. Mann-Whitney U was used to test for potential differences in median BIA-Obesity total scores between traditional and nontraditional SNAP-authorized retailers (a priori, p &lt; 0.05). Results Average total BIA-Obesity scores for SNAP-authorized retailers ranged from 0 to 112 (16.5 [+ or -] 23.3). Total BIA-Obesity scores for traditional SNAP-authorized retailers (32.7 [+ or -] 33.6; median 25) were higher than nontraditional SNAP-authorized retailer scores (11.2 [+ or -] 16; median 5) (p = 0.008). For BIA-Obesity categories, average scores were highest for the category relationships with external organizations (8.3 [+ or -] 10.3) and lowest for promotion practices (0.6 [+ or -] 2.1). Conclusions Results of this research underscore a dearth of available evidence and substantial opportunity for improvement regarding SNAP-authorized retailer strategies to support nutrition security among Americans with lower income. Keywords: SNAP, Public health, Corporate social responsibility, Retail food environment, Healthy food retail</abstract><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><doi>10.1186/s12889-022-13624-9</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1471-2458
ispartof BMC public health, 2022-06, Vol.22 (1)
issn 1471-2458
1471-2458
language eng
recordid cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A707802109
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Control
Evaluation
Obesity
Prevention
Public health
Retail industry
title Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program tool
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T18%3A16%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Supplemental%20Nutrition%20Assistance%20Program%20tool&rft.jtitle=BMC%20public%20health&rft.au=Houghtaling,%20Bailey&rft.date=2022-06-20&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.issn=1471-2458&rft.eissn=1471-2458&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12889-022-13624-9&rft_dat=%3Cgale%3EA707802109%3C/gale%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A707802109&rfr_iscdi=true