Community Engaged Research Strategies Used in Food Retail Interventions: A Scoping Review

IF 4 2区 医学 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Pub Date : 2025-04-04 DOI:10.1016/j.jand.2025.04.002
Ravneet Kaur DrPH, MBA , Kathryn M. Janda-Thomte PhD, MPH , Bree Bode PhD, MPH , Hadis Dastgerdized PhD, MHA , Catherine Kaliszewski , Holly Hudson MLIS , Manorama Khare PhD, MS , Megan R. Winkler PhD, RN
{"title":"Community Engaged Research Strategies Used in Food Retail Interventions: A Scoping Review","authors":"Ravneet Kaur DrPH, MBA ,&nbsp;Kathryn M. Janda-Thomte PhD, MPH ,&nbsp;Bree Bode PhD, MPH ,&nbsp;Hadis Dastgerdized PhD, MHA ,&nbsp;Catherine Kaliszewski ,&nbsp;Holly Hudson MLIS ,&nbsp;Manorama Khare PhD, MS ,&nbsp;Megan R. Winkler PhD, RN","doi":"10.1016/j.jand.2025.04.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":379,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics","volume":"125 9","pages":"Pages 1346-1375.e3"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221226722500125X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

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.

Objective

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.

Methods

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).

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社区参与研究策略用于食品零售干预:范围审查。
背景:在旨在改变食品零售环境(RFE)的干预措施中,美国各地的研究人员经常利用社区参与(CE)作为一种策略,尤其是在为低收入的种族隔离社区提供服务的地区。然而,人们对社区参与零售食品环境干预工作的广度、强度和方法知之甚少:本范围综述旨在确定研究人员在零售店干预文献中采用了哪些社区行政首长协调会研究方法,以及这些方法在零售店环境类型、干预阶段、干预年份和关键公平领域方面有何不同:按照乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)和《PRISMA 扩展范围审查指南》(PRISMA extension for Scoping Review guidelines)的要求,不论研究类型如何,凡是发表在学术期刊和英文版上、讨论零售点消费教育活动或策略的研究均被纳入。在 PubMed、CINAHL 和 ProQuest 中检索了从开始到 2023 年 8 月发表的报告。按照美国疾病控制和预防中心(CDC)的社区参与连续体框架,对社区参与研究策略进行了提取和分类,包括外联(最低社区参与度)、咨询/参与、合作和共同领导(最高社区参与度)。然后研究了社区参与研究策略在零售食品店环境、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)中的差异:本综述共收录了 104 份报告中的 98 项零售食品店干预措施,其中大部分是在超市(21%)、街角小店(20%)或多种零售食品店环境(21%)中实施的。所有干预措施都采用了外联的消费教育研究策略(人数=98),而大约一半的干预措施采用了共同领导的策略(人数=52)。通过对零售店环境和干预阶段的消费者参与研究策略进行探索,本综述发现,在不太传统的零售店环境(包括流动市场)中,以及在干预研究的所有阶段都采用消费者参与研究策略的干预措施中,消费者参与的形式更强。实施了最高形式的全民教育研究战略(即共同领导)的非正规教育干预措施也是那些涉及所有关键公平领域的干预措施:本综述的研究结果表明,非正规教育干预措施中的行政首长参与形式差别很大,当采用较高形式的行政首长参与时,会涉及更多的公平领域。从本综述中获得的启示表明,未来的研究应优先评估共同领导的 CE 战略在实现和维持社区与营养相关的健康公平成果方面的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
10.40%
发文量
649
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is the premier source for the practice and science of food, nutrition, and dietetics. The monthly, peer-reviewed journal presents original articles prepared by scholars and practitioners and is the most widely read professional publication in the field. The Journal focuses on advancing professional knowledge across the range of research and practice issues such as: nutritional science, medical nutrition therapy, public health nutrition, food science and biotechnology, foodservice systems, leadership and management, and dietetics education.
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Introducing Article Numbering to Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Timing of energy intake and ultra-processed food consumption are associated with obesity in adults in the United Kingdom: a pooled cross-sectional analysis of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008-2019). ¡Mi Vida Saludable!: Results of a Randomized, Controlled, 2x2 Factorial Trial of an In-Person and eHealth Diet and Physical Activity Intervention in Latina Breast Cancer Survivors. Experiences and perceptions of rural dietitians in Australian primary care settings: A qualitative research study informing the development of a rural telehealth Medical Nutrition Therapy intervention.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1