Suppr超能文献

按商店类型划分的购买品的营养状况:收入和食品计划参与情况的差异。

Nutritional Profile of Purchases by Store Type: Disparities by Income and Food Program Participation.

机构信息

Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

出版信息

Am J Prev Med. 2018 Aug;55(2):167-177. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.024. Epub 2018 Jun 15.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Policymakers have focused on the food retail environment for improving the dietary quality for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants. Yet little is known about where SNAP households make food and beverage purchases or how purchases may vary by store type, SNAP participation, and income level. The objective of this study was to examine the association between SNAP-income status (participant, income-eligible non-participant, higher-income non-participant) and healthfulness of household purchases across store types.

METHODS

Data included household packaged food purchases (N=76,458 unique households) from 2010 to 2014, analyzed in 2017 with multivariable adjusted models to examine the nutritional profile of purchases by store type (grocery, convenience, big box, and other stores) for SNAP participating households, income-eligible non-participants, and higher-income non-participants. Outcomes included volume and nutrients (kilocalories, total sugar, saturated fat, and sodium) and calories from food groups.

RESULTS

All households purchased the greatest volume of foods and beverages from grocery stores, followed by big-box and other stores, with relatively little purchased from convenience stores. The largest differences between SNAP participants and non-participants were observed at grocery stores and big-box stores, where SNAP households purchased more calories from starchy vegetables, processed meat, desserts, sweeteners and toppings, total junk food, sugar-sweetened beverages, and milk, than income-eligible and higher-income SNAP non-participants. SNAP purchases also had considerably higher sodium density. Across store types, the nutritional profile of income-eligible non-participants' purchases was similar to higher-income households' purchases.

CONCLUSIONS

More research is needed to identify strategies to improve the nutritional profile of purchases among SNAP households.

摘要

简介

政策制定者一直关注食品零售环境,以改善补充营养援助计划(SNAP)参与者的饮食质量。然而,人们对 SNAP 家庭在哪里购买食品和饮料,以及购买行为如何因商店类型、SNAP 参与情况和收入水平而有所不同知之甚少。本研究的目的是检验 SNAP-收入状况(参与者、符合收入条件的非参与者、高收入非参与者)与家庭购买各种商店类型食品的健康程度之间的关系。

方法

数据包括 2010 年至 2014 年家庭购买的包装食品(76458 个独特家庭),于 2017 年采用多变量调整模型进行分析,以检验家庭购买各种商店类型(杂货店、便利店、大型超市和其他商店)食品的营养状况,包括参与者、符合收入条件的非参与者和高收入非参与者。结果包括各种食品和饮料的购买量和营养成分(千卡、总糖、饱和脂肪和钠)以及食物组的卡路里摄入量。

结果

所有家庭都从杂货店购买了最多的食品和饮料,其次是大型超市和其他商店,从便利店购买的相对较少。SNAP 参与者和非参与者之间最大的差异是在杂货店和大型超市,SNAP 家庭从淀粉类蔬菜、加工肉类、甜点、甜味剂和浇头、总垃圾食品、含糖饮料和牛奶中购买的卡路里比符合收入条件的和高收入 SNAP 非参与者多。SNAP 购买的食品的钠含量也明显较高。在各种商店类型中,符合收入条件的非参与者的购买食品的营养状况与高收入家庭的购买食品的营养状况相似。

结论

需要进一步研究,以确定改善 SNAP 家庭购买食品的营养状况的策略。

相似文献

1
Nutritional Profile of Purchases by Store Type: Disparities by Income and Food Program Participation.
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Aug;55(2):167-177. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.024. Epub 2018 Jun 15.
2
Nutritional profile of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program household food and beverage purchases.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 Jun;105(6):1433-1442. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.147173. Epub 2017 Apr 19.
3
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation and racial/ethnic disparities in food and beverage purchases.
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Dec;21(18):3377-3385. doi: 10.1017/S1368980018002598. Epub 2018 Oct 11.
4
Grocery store beverage choices by participants in federal food assistance and nutrition programs.
Am J Prev Med. 2012 Oct;43(4):411-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.06.015.
5
Grocery Stores Are Not Associated with More Healthful Food for Participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019 Mar;119(3):400-415. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2018.06.006. Epub 2018 Sep 1.
6
Federal Nutrition Program Revisions Impact Low-income Households' Food Purchases.
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Mar;54(3):403-412. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.12.003.
7
Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Dietary Behaviors: Role of Community Food Environment.
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019 Jun;119(6):934-943.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2018.11.021. Epub 2019 Feb 8.
8
Where people shop is not associated with the nutrient quality of packaged foods for any racial-ethnic group in the United States.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Apr;103(4):1125-34. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.121806. Epub 2016 Feb 24.
10
Highly Processed and Ready-to-Eat Packaged Food and Beverage Purchases Differ by Race/Ethnicity among US Households.
J Nutr. 2016 Sep;146(9):1722-30. doi: 10.3945/jn.116.230441. Epub 2016 Jul 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Differences in United States Adult Dietary Patterns by Cardiometabolic Health and Socioeconomic Vulnerability.
J Nutr. 2025 Aug;155(8):2685-2699. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.06.002. Epub 2025 Jun 9.
2
Differences in US Adult Dietary Patterns by Cardiovascular Health and Socioeconomic Vulnerability.
medRxiv. 2025 Jan 3:2025.01.02.25319924. doi: 10.1101/2025.01.02.25319924.
3
Restaurant outlet density and the healthfulness of food purchases: evidence from FoodAPS.
Front Nutr. 2024 Apr 18;11:1369240. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1369240. eCollection 2024.
4
Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Prevalence Trends Among Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States, 2007-2016.
Hepatol Commun. 2021 Oct;5(10):1676-1688. doi: 10.1002/hep4.1760. Epub 2021 Jul 1.
5
Socio-economic and racial/ethnic disparities in the nutritional quality of packaged food purchases in the USA, 2008-2018.
Public Health Nutr. 2021 Dec;24(17):5730-5742. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021000367. Epub 2021 Jan 27.
6
Impact of the supplemental nutritional assistance program on diet-related disease morbidity among older adults.
Health Serv Res. 2021 Oct;56(5):854-863. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13609. Epub 2021 Jan 24.
8
Examining disparities in diet quality between SNAP participants and non-participants using Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition analysis.
Prev Med Rep. 2020 May 28;19:101134. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101134. eCollection 2020 Sep.
9
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Data: Why Disclosure Is Needed.
Am J Public Health. 2019 Dec;109(12):1659-1663. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305350. Epub 2019 Oct 17.

本文引用的文献

1
Transactions at a Northeastern Supermarket Chain: Differences by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Use.
Am J Prev Med. 2017 Oct;53(4):e131-e138. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.06.019. Epub 2017 Aug 14.
2
Nutritional profile of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program household food and beverage purchases.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 Jun;105(6):1433-1442. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.147173. Epub 2017 Apr 19.
3
Gains Made By Walmart's Healthier Food Initiative Mirror Preexisting Trends.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Nov;34(11):1869-76. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0072.
4
Diet And Perceptions Change With Supermarket Introduction In A Food Desert, But Not Because Of Supermarket Use.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Nov;34(11):1858-68. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0667.
5
Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat.
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1599-600. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1. Epub 2015 Oct 29.
6
The Nutrient Content of U.S. Household Food Purchases by Store Type.
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Feb;50(2):180-90. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.07.025. Epub 2015 Oct 1.
7
Dietary Quality of Americans by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Status: A Systematic Review.
Am J Prev Med. 2015 Oct;49(4):594-604. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.04.035. Epub 2015 Aug 1.
8
Assessment of a government-subsidized supermarket in a high-need area on household food availability and children's dietary intakes.
Public Health Nutr. 2015 Oct;18(15):2881-90. doi: 10.1017/S1368980015000282. Epub 2015 Feb 26.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验