Department of Urban Planning, School of Architecture, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China.
Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box 3140, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Oct 15;17(20):7517. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17207517.
Considerable research on the risk factors of obesity and chronic diseases has focused on relationships between where people live, where they shop, and the types of food they purchase. Rarely have investigators used a national sample and explicitly addressed the amount of energy-dense and nutrient-poor foods purchased in different types of neighborhood food stores. Even more rarely have studies accounted for the characteristics of the broader built environment in which food stores are located and which affect the convenience of using neighborhood food stores. We used a large population-based cohort of predominantly white U.S. households from the Nielsen Homescan Consumer Panel 2010 dataset to examine whether there were positive cross-sectional associations between availability of neighborhood convenience stores and supermarkets and self-reported household annual expenditures for snacks and beverages. We examined this relationship separately for poor and non-poor households as defined by the 2010 U.S. federal poverty threshold. We used mixed error-component regression models to examine associations between availability of neighborhood food stores and the expenditures on snacks and beverages, controlling for regional destination accessibility, availability and diversity of neighborhood destinations, and neighborhood street connectivity. In multivariate analyses, we observed that poor households in neighborhoods with few convenience stores purchased more snacks than poor households in neighborhoods with many convenience stores (b = -0.008, < 0.05). Non-poor households in neighborhoods with many convenience stores and fewer supermarkets purchased more snacks than non-poor households in neighborhoods with few convenience stores and many supermarkets (b = 0.002, < 0.05 for convenience stores; b = -0.027, < 0.05 for supermarkets). Increase in number of convenience stores decreased the purchase of snacks by poor households, but increased in non-poor households. On other hand, increase in number of supermarkets discouraged purchase of snacks by non-poor households but had no effect on the purchasing behavior of the poor-households.Therefore, evaluation of access to energy-dense and nutrient-poor foods should include a consideration of geographic proximity. Local governments should consider strategies to expand the availability and access to nutrient-rich food and beverage products in convenience stores for consumers.
大量关于肥胖和慢性病风险因素的研究集中在人们居住的地方、购物的地方以及他们购买的食物类型之间的关系上。很少有研究人员使用全国性样本，并明确解决在不同类型的社区食品店购买的高能量、低营养食品的数量问题。更罕见的是，研究考虑了食品店所在的更广泛的建筑环境的特征，这些特征会影响使用社区食品店的便利性。我们使用了来自尼尔森家庭扫描消费者小组 2010 年数据集的一个大型基于人群的、以白种人为主的美国家庭队列，以检验社区便利店和超市的供应是否与家庭年度零食和饮料支出呈正横断面关联。我们根据 2010 年美国联邦贫困标准，分别为贫困和非贫困家庭（poor and non-poor households）定义了这种关系。我们使用混合误差分量回归模型，在控制区域目的地可达性、社区目的地的可用性和多样性以及社区街道连通性的情况下，检验社区食品店供应与零食和饮料支出之间的关系。在多元分析中，我们发现，在便利店较少的社区中，贫困家庭购买的零食比便利店较多的社区中的贫困家庭多（b = -0.008， < 0.05）。在便利店较多、超市较少的社区中，非贫困家庭购买的零食比便利店较少、超市较多的社区中的非贫困家庭多（b = 0.002，便利店为 < 0.05；超市为 b = -0.027， < 0.05）。便利店数量的增加减少了贫困家庭对零食的购买，但增加了非贫困家庭的购买。另一方面，超市数量的增加减少了非贫困家庭对零食的购买，但对贫困家庭的购买行为没有影响。因此，对高能量、低营养食品的可及性评估应考虑地理位置的接近程度。地方政府应考虑采取策略，扩大便利店中富含营养的食品和饮料产品的供应和获取。
