Kaur Ravneet, Janda-Thomte Kathryn M, Bode Bree, Dastgerdized Hadis, Kaliszewski Catherine, Hudson Holly, Khare Manorama, Winkler Megan R
Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Illinois- College of Medicine Rockford, 1601 Parkview Avenue, Rockford, Illinois 61107.
Department of Public Health, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97343, Waco, Texas 76798.
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2025 Sep;125(9):1346-1375.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2025.04.002. Epub 2025 Apr 4.
Researchers across the United States often leverage community engagement (CE) as a strategy in interventions aiming to alter the retail food environment (RFE), especially in areas serving racially segregated neighborhoods with low incomes. However, little is known about the full breadth, intensity, and approaches used to engage communities in RFE intervention work.
The purpose of this scoping review is to identify what CE research approaches have been applied by researchers in the RFE intervention literature and how they vary by type of retail settings, phase of intervention, year of intervention, and key domains of equity.
Following the JBI (formerly known as Joanna Briggs Institute) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Review guidelines, any study published in academic journals and English that discussed activities or strategies for CE in RFEs, irrespective of the type of study, was included. PubMed, CINAHL, and ProQuest were searched for reports published from inception until August 2023. CE research strategies were extracted and classified following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continuum of community engagement framework, including outreach (lowest CE), consult/involve, collaboration, and shared leadership (highest CE). CE research strategies were then examined for their variation across RFE setting, intervention phase, intervention year, and key equity domains related to healthy food retail (eg, affordability).
A total of 98 RFE interventions reported in 104 reports were included in this review, and most were implemented in either supermarkets (21%), corner stores (20%), or multiple RFE settings (21%). All interventions employed CE research strategies of outreach (n = 98), whereas approximately half employed strategies of shared leadership (n = 52). Exploring CE research strategies by RFE settings and intervention phase, this review found stronger forms of CE in less traditional RFE settings, including mobile markets, and among interventions that used CE research strategies across all phases of the intervention study. RFE interventions that implemented the highest forms of CE research strategies (ie, shared leadership) were also those that addressed all key equity domains.
The findings of this review reveal that the form of CE in RFE interventions varied widely, with more domains of equity addressed when higher forms of CE were used. Insights from this review suggest that future research should prioritize assessing the effectiveness of shared leadership CE strategies on achieving and sustaining nutrition-related health equity outcomes for communities.
美国各地的研究人员经常将社区参与（CE）作为一种策略，用于旨在改变零售食品环境（RFE）的干预措施中，尤其是在为低收入种族隔离社区服务的地区。然而，对于在RFE干预工作中让社区参与的全面程度、强度和方法，我们知之甚少。
本范围综述的目的是确定RFE干预文献中的研究人员采用了哪些CE研究方法，以及这些方法如何因零售场所类型、干预阶段、干预年份和公平性关键领域而有所不同。
遵循循证卫生保健国际协作网（JBI，前身为乔安娜·布里格斯循证卫生保健中心）和系统评价与Meta分析优先报告条目（PRISMA）扩展的范围综述指南，纳入任何在学术期刊上发表的、用英文撰写的讨论RFE中CE活动或策略的研究，无论研究类型如何。检索了PubMed、护理学与健康领域数据库（CINAHL）和ProQuest，以查找从创刊至2023年8月发表的报告。根据美国疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）的社区参与连续统一体框架提取并分类CE研究策略，包括外展（最低程度的CE）、咨询/参与、协作和共享领导（最高程度的CE）。然后研究CE研究策略在RFE设置、干预阶段、干预年份以及与健康食品零售相关的关键公平领域（如可负担性）方面的差异。
本综述纳入了104篇报告中报道的总共98项RFE干预措施，其中大多数在超市（21%）、街角商店（20%）或多个RFE场所（21%）实施。所有干预措施都采用了外展的CE研究策略（n = 98），而大约一半采用了共享领导的策略（n = 52）。通过RFE设置和干预阶段探索CE研究策略，本综述发现在不太传统的RFE场所，如移动市场，以及在干预研究的所有阶段都使用CE研究策略的干预措施中，CE的形式更强。实施最高形式CE研究策略（即共享领导）的RFE干预措施也是那些涉及所有关键公平领域的措施。
本综述的结果表明，RFE干预中CE的形式差异很大，使用更高形式的CE时涉及的公平领域更多。本综述的见解表明，未来的研究应优先评估共享领导CE策略对实现和维持社区营养相关健康公平结果的有效性。
