Many small-store intervention trials have been conducted in the United States and other countries to improve the food environment and dietary behaviors associated with chronic disease risk. However, no systematic reviews of the methods and outcomes of these trials have been published. The objective of this study was to identify small-store interventions and to determine their impact on food availability, dietary behaviors, and psychosocial factors that influence chronic disease risk.
From May 2009 through September 2010, we used PubMed, web-based searches, and listservs to identify small-store interventions that met the following criteria: 1) a focus on small food stores, 2) a completed impact evaluation, and 3) English-written documentation (peer-reviewed articles or other trial documents). We initially identified 28 trials; 16 met inclusion criteria and were used for analysis. We conducted interviews with project staff to obtain additional information. Reviewers extracted and reported data in a table format to ensure comparability between data.
Reviewed trials were implemented in rural and urban settings in 6 countries and primarily targeted low-income racial/ethnic minority populations. Common intervention strategies included increasing the availability of healthier foods (particularly produce), point-of-purchase promotions (shelf labels, posters), and community engagement. Less common strategies included business training and nutrition education. We found significant effects for increased availability of healthy foods, improved sales of healthy foods, and improved consumer knowledge and dietary behaviors.
Trial impact appeared to be linked to the increased provision of both healthy foods (supply) and health communications designed to increase consumption (demand).
Small food stores, which are common in low-income areas with a high proportion of racial/ethnic minorities (
Our objective was to identify small-store intervention strategies that produce significant increases in healthy food access and consumption. Specifically, we sought to present the design and evaluation components of each trial, to describe the process indicators (reach, dose, and fidelity) and impact (at the store and consumer levels) associated with each intervention, and to suggest potential next steps in research, practice, and policy.
corner store
small food store
retail food store
bodega
tienda
store intervention
store program
store trial
food retail [and] intervention
food retail [and] program
food retail [and] trial
food environment [and] intervention
food environment [and] program
food environment [and] trial
food access
food availability
food desert
produce [and] availability
produce [and] access
fruit [and] vegetable [and] access
fruit [and] vegetable [and] availability
From May 2009 through September 2010, we searched the peer-reviewed literature and "gray" literature. Only literature after 1990 was considered. Gray literature included newsletters, published (non-eer reviewed) articles, policy briefs or reports, published trial materials, and conference presentations. Using fixed search terms, we first conducted a PubMed search of peer-reviewed literature to identify small-store intervention trials designed to improve access to healthy foods. We then posted requests on the Healthy Corner Store Network (HCSN) listserv, conducted HCSN website searches, reviewed the abstracts from nutrition and food policy conferences, and consulted with colleagues. We performed searches using the same methods and fixed search terms every 6 months during the review period (
Small stores were defined as having fewer than 10 employees and less than 1,000 square feet of floor space. Corner stores were urban small stores that were independently owned. Convenience stores were small retailers that were part of national or regional chains. Gas station stores were retail stores for servicing motor vehicles that also carried a limited selection of foods and beverages. Bodegas or tiendas were Hispanic-owned small ethnic-food stores. Urban areas were defined as census block groups with a total population of at least 2,500 and an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile. Rural areas were all territory outside urban areas.
We initially identified 28 trials; 8 were drawn from PubMed. All identified food-store trials were reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) a focus on small food stores (although other food sources such as supermarkets and restaurants could be part of the study), 2) a completed impact evaluation (eg, pre-post assessment, use of a comparison group, exposure assessment), and 3) some form of written documentation (eg, peer-reviewed journal article, newsletter, other published article, policy brief or report, published trial materials, or conference presentation) that included a description of all implemented intervention and evaluation strategies and is written in English. Sixteen trials met inclusion criteria.
To mitigate bias, we documented the search process and the decisions that were made for each trial document. Two primary reviewers (P.G., M.R.), working independently, screened and selected trials. Each eligible trial was systematically appraised in terms of study design, interventions, outcome measures, fidelity of the implementation of the interventions, and trial findings. Disagreements were adjudicated by a secondary independent reviewer (J.G.).
The 2 primary reviewers independently extracted and analyzed data by carefully reviewing all documents. The secondary reviewer developed the system of extracting data and coding variables. Variables, such as store type, were based on industry definitions. The 2 primary reviewers conducted interrater reliability assessments to assure consistency in coding. The secondary reviewer resolved discrepancies noted by the 2 primary reviewers and identified and adjudicated other discrepancies that might affect reliability and analysis.
Primary reviewers were instructed to extract data for each variable and to organize data using a trial as the unit of analysis. The data, which were summarized in 3 tables, were descriptive and comprehensive. These tables were submitted via e-mail to all trial managers (n = 16) for review and revision. Six months later, 11 of the 16 trial managers participated in semistructured phone interviews, which were designed to supplement and verify information on trial components, evaluations, and results. The remaining 5 trial managers did not respond to our request for an interview or were no longer involved with the trial.
After the initial review and follow-up, we created categories and terminology to provide comparability between extracted data. Primary reviewers extracted and reported data in accordance with this predetermined structure. The tables were modified accordingly. The secondary reviewer confirmed data accuracy using initial review findings, e-mail correspondences, interview transcripts, and extraction and reporting guidelines.
The analytic approach used to assess the trials was therefore based on the presence or absence of a standard set of quality criteria (eg, randomization, use of control groups) and the report of impact at the store and consumer levels. Meta-analytic techniques were not used, given the heterogeneity of outcome data, which did not permit the creation of summary estimates of impact.
Of the 16 trials (
Eleven trials focused on urban settings, and 5 focused on remote or rural populations. Four trials took place outside the United States (
Thirteen trials explicitly mentioned theoretical frameworks that guided their design. Projects such as Vida Sana Hoy y Mafñana (
Nine trials articulated their primary goal as improving access to healthy foods or, in some trials, fruits and vegetables (n = 4). Only 4 trials stated their primary goal as changing food purchasing and consumption patterns, but all 16 trials listed it as an indirect goal. Two trials, Vida Sana Hoy y Mafñana (
Corner stores were the most frequently mentioned small-store types (n = 12). Less frequently mentioned were convenience stores (n = 3), bodegas/tiendas (n = 3), and liquor stores (n = 2). Examples of trials focusing on corner stores include the Live Well Colorado Corner Store Initiative (
All 16 trials emphasized increased stocking of healthy foods, and 15 emphasized fresh produce promotion. Five trials focused exclusively on promoting produce. The other 11 trials, such as the Healthy Food Retailer Initiative (
Twelve trials used in-store signage (eg, shelf labels and posters) for point-of-purchase promotions. Seven trials, such as the Scottish Grocers Federation Healthy Living Neighborhood Shop (
A common community engagement strategy (n = 8) was the use of stakeholder workshops to design and refine interventions. The South Los Angeles Healthy Eating, Active Communities trial (
Five trials worked directly with store owners and staff to provide general health education and business training (eg, stocking and handling fresh produce). Vida Sana Hoy y Mafñana (
Two trials worked to improve the small-store refrigeration system. One grocery store was stocked with a new energy-efficient refrigerator and used green materials to improve the store infrastructure (
Six trials included intervention strategies to reduce the cost of foods or products related to food procurement at the consumer or store level. Three trials, Baltimore Healthy Stores (
All 16 trials included pre- to post-intervention evaluations (
Fifteen trials collected some form of process data, 14 of which collected both qualitative and quantitative data. Process data focused on availability of promoted foods, the presence of planned signage and other intervention materials, and store owner/manager engagement. The Zhiwaapenewin Akino'maagewin trial (
Fifteen trials assessed changes in availability of healthy foods; all used pre-post assessments. Ten assessments focused exclusively on perishable goods (produce, and, in 1 case, milk). Nine trials assessed impact on both food stocking and sales. Given the lack of owner-recorded sales data, the Baltimore Healthy Stores trial (
Using pre-post assessments (n = 13), comparison group evaluations (n = 5), and exposure evaluations (n = 7), 14 trials (8 of which used multiple methods) examined impact on consumer psychosocial characteristics. Of these, the most frequently assessed outcomes were consumer food-related knowledge (n = 11), intentions (n = 9), and self-efficacy (n = 8). Less frequently assessed were attitudes about stocking healthier foods (n = 3), perceived barriers to healthy food purchasing (n = 1), and outcome expectations (n = 1).
Food purchasing patterns (eg, frequency of purchase) were the most commonly assessed consumer behavioral change (n = 14). Thirteen trials used pre-post evaluations to assess changes in purchasing behaviors, 5 of which used a comparison group. Eight trials examined change in diet using pre-post assessments, 5 of which used a comparison group. A quantitative food frequency questionnaire served as the primary tool for assessments for those trials. Four trials, including Vida Sana Hoy y Mafñana (
Only 4 trials examined health outcomes, all of which focused exclusively on body mass index (BMI) change.
Food stocking and in-store promotional materials were placed and maintained with moderate to high fidelity across all trials (
Overall availability of promoted foods increased in all of the trials, yet some trials varied in food availability, such as certain low-fat snacks (eg, Baltimore Healthy Stores [
Significant increases in sales of promoted foods were reported among all trials that collected sales data (Apache Healthy Stores [
Consumer impact data were available (in both peer-reviewed and gray literature) for 10 trials. For 7 trials, consistent increases in food and health-related knowledge were observed; each of these trials included comparison groups. Other findings, which varied by trial, included increased recognition of the availability of healthy foods (Romano's Grocery Store Renovation [
Of the 10 trials that reported impact on consumer purchasing and consumption behaviors, 9 observed significantly increased purchasing frequency of at least 1 promoted food. Seven of the 10 trials reported increased purchasing, by weight, of promoted foods, including fruits and vegetables, low-fat milk, high-fiber cereals, and water.
No significant changes in BMI were reported by the 4 trials that assessed this outcome.
Our findings indicate consistent improvements across most of the trials in the availability and sale of healthy foods, the purchase and consumption of those foods, and consumer knowledge. Most of the trials that showed positive impact used multipronged strategies (food provision, infrastructure, and health communication) designed to improve both access to healthy foods (supply) and consumption of those foods (demand), thus demonstrating the need for combined environmental and behavioral approaches in small-store interventions.
Several studies have demonstrated that price reductions, through discounts, coupons, vouchers, and loans, can positively affect consumer demand for and consumption of healthy foods (
Limiting the availability of unhealthy food should also be considered. Four trials implicitly sought to discourage consumption by moving those products to the back of the store and shifting healthier items closer to the point of purchase. Only 2 aimed to reduce the availability of unhealthy foods. Three trials provided business training, which aimed to reduce profit loss associated with stocking and structural changes and was associated with improved healthy food availability. A combination of modifications to reduce unhealthy food stocking and consumption and training to reduce profit loss risks should be included in future trials and may be a sustainable policy-level approach. These modifications could be achieved through future mandates or licensing requirements for healthy food stocking.
Our systematic review indicated several deficiencies in small-store trials. Most trials assessed impact on store stocking of healthy foods, but many trials failed to consider sales data, and few examined impact on consumer outcomes, such as diet and health. No retail food-store trials have shown impact on health outcomes, such as obesity. The ability to influence health outcomes will require a more systematic evidenced-based approach to modifying the food environment, greater use of randomized controlled trials to evaluate program effectiveness (
Finally, efforts should be made to translate current small-store intervention findings into policy. Policies aimed at increasing healthy food availability have the potential to sustain improved nutrition among low-income populations (
This systematic review has several limitations. Our findings are more descriptive than definitive. Because the trials varied widely, we did not conduct a meta-analysis with summary estimates, which would have provided a more comprehensive and precise statement of findings. We did not require that trials included in our review publish data in peer-reviewed journals. Although our conclusions were drawn largely from peer-reviewed literature, we found support for them in the gray literature, which we included in this study because of the dearth of information on small-store interventions in peer-reviewed literature. As a result, our analysis lacks information on assessment tools, and our impact analysis lacks summary estimates,
We provide the first systematic review of small-store interventions as a potential approach for addressing the obesity and diet-related chronic disease epidemics in the United States and internationally. Many of the findings presented are derived from gray literature, which may challenge their credibility. Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence supports the use of this approach to improve small-store stocks and sales of healthy foods, consumer psychosocial factors, and food purchasing and consumption behaviors. Further research is needed to determine the best combination of interventions for small-store trials.
This review was supported by a Commissioned Analysis grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Healthy Eating Research program and by an Innovation Grant from the Johns Hopkins University Center for a Livable Future.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions.
Description of Small-Store Intervention Trials 1-6
|
| Apache Healthy Stores ( | Baltimore Healthy Stores ( | Have a Heart Paisley – Changing Lifestyle ( | Healthy Bodegas ( | Live Well Colorado ( | Healthy Eating, Active Communities ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Peer review article | Peer-reviewed article | Peer-reviewed article | Interview | Printed materials | Printed materials |
|
| San Carlos Apache | Baltimore | Scotland | New York | Denver | Los Angeles |
|
| Social cognitive theory | Social cognitive theory | Social cognitive/ | Social ecological model | Social ecological model | Theory of change |
|
| Availability | Availability | Affordability | Availability | Availability | Availability |
|
| Produce | Produce | Produce | Water | Snacks | Produce |
|
| Signage | Signage | Signage | Signage | Community promotion | Refrigeration |
Description of Small-Store Intervention Trials 7-11
|
| Healthy Food Retailer Initiative ( | Healthy Foods Hawai'i ( | Healthy Living Neighborhood Shop ( | Marshall Islands Healthy Stores ( | Outback Stores ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Printed materials | Peer review article | Peer review article | Peer review article | Interview |
|
| Hartford, Connecticut | Honolulu, Hawai'i | Glasgow, Scotland | Republic of Marshall Islands | Australia |
|
| Social ecological model | Social cognitive theory | Theory of reasoned action | Social cognitive theory | Not stated |
|
| Availability | Availability | Availability | Availability | Availability |
|
| Produce | Produce | Produce | Produce | Snacks |
|
| Shelving | Signage | Refrigeration | Signage | Store owner discounts |
Description of Small-Store Intervention Trials 8-16
|
| Romano's Grocery Store Renovation ( | Steps to a Healthier New Orleans ( | The Good Neighbors Program ( | Vida Sana Hoy y Mañana ( | Zhiwaapenewin Akino'maagewin ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Interview | Program materials | Peer-reviewed article | Interviews | Peer-reviewed articles |
|
| Philadelphia | New Orleans | San Francisco | North Carolina | Western Ontario |
|
| Social ecological model | Other | Environmental justice and sustainability model | Social cognitive theory | Social cognitive theory |
|
| Availability | Availability | Availability | Availability | Availability |
|
| Produce | Produce | Snacks | Produce | Produce |
|
| Refrigeration | Signage | Store owner education | Signage | Signage |
Evaluation Strategies of Small-Store Intervention Trials 1-6
|
| Apache Healthy Stores ( | Baltimore Healthy Stores ( | Have a Heart Paisley – Changing Lifestyle ( | Healthy Bodegas ( | Live Well Colorado ( | Healthy Eating, Active Communities ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment |
|
| In-depth interviews | In-depth interviews | Semi-structured interviews | In-depth interviews | In-depth interviews | In-depth interviews |
|
| Availability | Availability | Availability | Availability | Availability | Availability |
|
| Knowledge | Knowledge | Knowledge | Knowledge | None reported | Knowledge |
|
| Purchasing | Purchasing | Purchasing | Purchasing | Purchasing | Purchasing |
Evaluation Strategies of Small-Store Intervention Trials 7-11
|
| Healthy Food Retailer Initiative ( | Healthy Foods Hawai'i ( | Healthy Living Neighborhood Shop ( | Marshall Islands Healthy Stores ( | Outback Stores ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment |
|
| None collected | In-depth interviews | Semistructured interviews | In-depth interviews | None collected |
|
| Availability (% junk vs healthy food) | Availability | Availability | None collected | Availability |
|
| None collected | Knowledge | Knowledge | Knowledge | Knowledge |
|
| None collected | Purchasing | Purchasing | Purchasing | Diet |
Evaluation Strategies of Small-Store Intervention Trials 12-16
|
| Romano's Grocery Store Renovation ( | Steps to a Healthier New Orleans ( | The Good Neighbors Program ( | Vida Sana Hoy y Mañana ( | Zhiwaapenewin Akino'maagewin ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment | Pre-post Assessment | Pre-post assessment | Pre-post assessment |
|
| In-Depth interviews | In-depth interviews | In-depth interviews | In-depth interviews | In-depth interviews |
|
| Availability | Sales records from 2/20 stores | Availability | Availability | Availability |
|
| Attitude | None collected | Attitude | Knowledge | Knowledge |
|
| Purchasing | None collected | Purchasing | Purchasing | Diet |
Results of Small-Store Intervention Trials 1-6
|
| Apache Healthy Stores ( | Baltimore Healthy Stores ( | Have a Heart Paisley – Changing Lifestyle ( | Healthy Bodegas ( | Live Well Colorado ( | Healthy Eating, Active Communities ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Store: High dose, high reach, medium/high fidelity | Interactive sessions | Coupons | Owner education: high fidelity | Marketing/community promotion | Shelf labeling |
|
| Increased sales (intervention vs comparison) | Increased availability | Increased availability | Increased availability (low-fat dairy) | Increased sales (produce) | Increased availability (produce) |
|
| Increased knowledge | Increased intentions | Increased knowledge | Not available | Not available | Increased knowledge |
|
| Increased purchasing | Increased purchasing (correlated with shelf labels) | Increased purchasing (frequency, volume, variety) | Not available | Not available | Increased purchasing |
Results of Small-Store Intervention Trials 7-11
|
| Healthy Food Retailer Initiative ( | Healthy Foods Hawai'i ( | Healthy Living Neighborhood Shop ( | Marshall Islands Healthy Stores ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Not collected | Overall: medium dose, reach, and fidelity | Produce quality, availability: high fidelity | Overall: medium dose and reach, high fidelity | Management compliance: high fidelity |
|
| Increased availability: produce | Not collected | Increased sales: produce (correlated with marketing) | Not collected | Increased availability and variety |
|
| Not available | Increased knowledge | Increased knowledge: health benefits | Increased knowledge: diabetes, label reading | Not collected |
|
| Not available | Increased purchasing | Increased purchasing: produce | Increased purchasing and preparation | Not collected |
Results of Small-Store Intervention Trials 12-16
|
| Romano's Grocery Store Renovation ( | Steps to a Healthier New Orleans ( | The Good Neighbors Program ( | Vida Sana Hoy y Mañana ( | Zhiwaapenewin Akino'maagewin ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Not available | Marketing: high fidelity and dose | Nutrition education, cooking demonstration, cookbook: high dose and fidelity | Employee training: medium to high fidelity | Schools/store: medium reach and fidelity |
|
| Increased availability: produce | Increased availability: produce, fiber, low-fat dairy | Increased sale: produce | Increased availability: produce (post-intervention) | Not collected |
|
| Increased knowledge: healthy food identification | Not collected | Not available | Decreased self-efficacy | Increased knowledge: healthy food identification |
|
| Increased purchasing | Not collected | Not available | Increased consumption: produce | Increased purchasing |