↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a pilot healthy eating intervention in restaurants and food stores of a rural community: a randomized community trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of a pilot healthy eating intervention in restaurants and food stores of a rural community: a randomized community trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1469-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana P Martínez-Donate, Ann Josie Riggall, Amy M Meinen, Kristen Malecki, Anne L Escaron, Bev Hall, Anne Menzies, Gary Garske, F Javier Nieto, Susan Nitzke

Abstract

Research suggests that the food environment influences individual eating practices. To date, little is known about effective interventions to improve the food environment of restaurants and food stores and promote healthy eating in rural communities. We tested "Waupaca Eating Smart " (WES), a pilot intervention to improve the food environment and promote healthy eating in restaurants and supermarkets of a rural community. WES focused on labeling, promoting, and increasing the availability of healthy foods. We conducted a randomized community trial, with two Midwestern U.S. communities randomly assigned to serve as intervention or control site. We collected process and outcome data using baseline and posttest owner and customer surveys and direct observation methods. The RE-AIM framework was used to guide the evaluation and organize the results. Seven of nine restaurants and two of three food stores invited to participate in WES adopted the intervention. On a 0-4 scale, the average level of satisfaction with WES was 3.14 (SD=0.69) for restaurant managers and 3 (SD=0.0) for store managers. On average, 6.3 (SD=1.1) out of 10 possible intervention activities were implemented in restaurants and 9.0 (SD=0.0) out of 12 possible activities were implemented in food stores. One month after the end of the pilot implementation period, 5.4 (SD=1.6) and 7.5 (SD=0.7) activities were still in place at restaurants and food stores, respectively. The intervention reached 60% of customers in participating food outlets. Restaurant food environment scores improved from 13.4 to 24.1 (p < 0.01) in the intervention community and did not change significantly in the control community. Food environment scores decreased slightly in both communities. No or minimal changes in customer behaviors were observed after a 10-month implementation period. The intervention achieved high levels of reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance, suggesting the feasibility and acceptability of restaurant-and food store-based interventions in rural communities. Pilot outcome data indicated very modest levels of effectiveness, but additional research adequately powered to test the impact of this intervention on food environment scores and customer behaviors needs to be conducted in order to identify its potential to promote healthy eating in rural community settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 24%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 31 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 16%
Social Sciences 17 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 37 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2023.
All research outputs
#3,319,875
of 23,485,204 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,781
of 15,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,448
of 361,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#59
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,485,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,299 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.