↓ Skip to main content

Why do you shop there? A mixed methods study mapping household food shopping patterns onto weekly routines of black women

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, January 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Why do you shop there? A mixed methods study mapping household food shopping patterns onto weekly routines of black women
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12966-016-0333-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine Isselmann DiSantis, Amy Hillier, Rio Holaday, Shiriki Kumanyika

Abstract

The effectiveness of initiatives to increase healthy food access may be affected by where people decide to shop. People with poor neighborhood access to large grocery stores develop shopping patterns that require traveling to other areas, and some people who do have neighborhood access also travel elsewhere for food shopping. We sought to gain an understanding of household food shopping patterns in a sample of Black women in terms of where they shopped and why. All food shopping trips of 35 low- or middle/high-income black mothers or caregivers living with at least one child were identified from grocery shopping receipts collected over four consecutive weeks. Food shopping locations were mapped along with locations of participants' homes and other places they visited during weekly routine travels (e.g. work, child's school). Semi-structured individual interviews elicited narrative information about whether and how grocery shopping trips were linked to routine travels. Inductive content analysis was utilized to identify emergent themes from interviews. Themes were considered in relation to geospatial distances and travel patterns identified through mapping of participants' shopping. Participants shopped at an average of six different stores, traveling on average a total of 35 miles (sd = 41) (Euclidian distance) over the four weeks. The most frequented store was within a mile of home (57 %) or home or another place visited in the weekly routine for about 77 % of participants. Interview results emphasized the concept of convenience which referred to geographical proximity to the home or routine destinations and also to potential to save time because several stores were co-located or because the store layout was easy to navigate and familiar. Store selection also related to mode of transportation, pricing, and family preference for certain foods. People have specific reasons for consistently shopping in areas outside of their neighborhood of residence. Incorporating considerations other than proximity (e.g. time saving while shopping, promoting less familiar foods, pricing) into food environment interventions may facilitate use of new stores by neighborhood residents and thereby increase the viability of these stores as health-promoting food environment interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 166 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 19%
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 10 6%
Other 36 21%
Unknown 35 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 37 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 13%
Psychology 8 5%
Environmental Science 7 4%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 45 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,706,391
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#942
of 2,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,692
of 405,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#24
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 405,473 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.