University of Minnesota, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Program in Health Disparities Research,717 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414,USA.
HealthPartners Institute,Bloomington, MN,USA.
Public Health Nutr. 2019 Aug;22(12):2303-2313. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019000405. Epub 2019 Mar 12.
To test the effect of a behavioural economics intervention in two food pantries on the nutritional quality of foods available at the pantries and the foods selected by adults visiting food pantries.
An intervention (SuperShelf) was implemented in two food pantries (Sites A and B), with two other pantries (Sites C and D) serving as a control for pantry outcomes. The intervention aimed to increase the amount and variety of healthy foods (supply), as well as the appeal of healthy foods (demand) using behavioural economics strategies. Assessments included baseline and 4-month follow-up client surveys, client cart inventories, pantry inventories and environmental assessments. A fidelity score (range 0-100) was assigned to each intervention pantry to measure the degree of implementation. A Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-2010) score (range 0-100) was generated for each client cart and pantry.
Four Minnesota food pantries, USA.ParticipantsClients visiting intervention pantries before (n 71) and after (n 70) the intervention.
Fidelity scores differed by intervention site (Site A=82, Site B=51). At Site A, in adjusted models, client cart HEI-2010 scores increased on average by 11·8 points (P<0·0001), whereas there was no change at Site B. HEI-2010 pantry environment scores increased in intervention pantries (Site A=8 points, Site B=19 points) and decreased slightly in control pantries (Site C=-4 points, Site D=-3 points).
When implemented as intended, SuperShelf has the potential to improve the nutritional quality of foods available to and selected by pantry clients.
检验在两家食品发放处实施行为经济学干预对食品发放处供应食品的营养质量以及到访食品发放处的成年人选择食品的影响。
在两家食品发放处（A 点和 B 点）实施一项干预措施（超级货架），另外两家食品发放处（C 点和 D 点）作为发放处结果的对照。该干预措施旨在使用行为经济学策略增加健康食品的数量和种类（供应），并提高健康食品的吸引力（需求）。评估包括基线和 4 个月随访时的客户调查、客户购物车清单、发放处清单和环境评估。为每个干预发放处分配一个忠诚度得分（范围 0-100），以衡量实施程度。为每个客户购物车和发放处生成一个健康饮食指数-2010 得分（范围 0-100）。
美国明尼苏达州的四家食品发放处。
干预前（n=71）和干预后（n=70）到访干预发放处的客户。
干预点之间的忠诚度得分存在差异（A 点=82，B 点=51）。在 A 点，在调整后的模型中，客户购物车健康饮食指数-2010 得分平均增加了 11.8 分（P＜0.0001），而 B 点则没有变化。干预发放处的健康饮食指数-2010 环境得分增加（A 点增加 8 分，B 点增加 19 分），对照发放处的得分略有下降（C 点下降 4 分，D 点下降 3 分）。
当按照预期实施时，超级货架有可能改善食品发放处提供给客户和客户选择的食品的营养质量。
