A process evaluation of the Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial
|dc.contributor.author||Ni Mhurchu, C.|
|dc.identifier.citation||Olstad, D. and Ball, K. and Abbott, G. and McNaughton, S. and Le, H. and Ni Mhurchu, C. and Pollard, C. et al. 2016. A process evaluation of the Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 13 (1): Article ID 27.|
Background: Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) was a randomized controlled trial that operationalized a socioecological approach to population-level dietary behaviour change in a real-world supermarket setting. SHELf tested the impact of individual (skill-building), environmental (20 % price reductions), and combined (skill-building + 20 % price reductions) interventions on women's purchasing and consumption of fruits, vegetables, low-calorie carbonated beverages and water. This process evaluation investigated the reach, effectiveness, implementation, and maintenance of the SHELf interventions. Methods: RE-AIM provided a conceptual framework to examine the processes underlying the impact of the interventions using data from participant surveys and objective sales data collected at baseline, post-intervention (3 months) and 6-months post-intervention. Fisher's exact, ? 2 and t-tests assessed differences in quantitative survey responses among groups. Adjusted linear regression examined the impact of self-reported intervention dose on food purchasing and consumption outcomes. Thematic analysis identified key themes within qualitative survey responses. Results: Reach of the SHELf interventions to disadvantaged groups, and beyond study participants themselves, was moderate. Just over one-third of intervention participants indicated that the interventions were effective in changing the way they bought, cooked or consumed food (p < 0.001 compared to control), with no differences among intervention groups. Improvements in purchasing and consumption outcomes were greatest among those who received a higher intervention dose. Most notably, participants who said they accessed price reductions on fruits and vegetables purchased (519 g/week) and consumed (0.5 servings/day) more vegetables. The majority of participants said they accessed (82 %) and appreciated discounts on fruits and vegetables, while there was limited use (40 %) and appreciation of discounts on low-calorie carbonated beverages and water. Overall reported satisfaction with, use, and impact of the skill-building resources was moderate. Maintenance of newly acquired behaviours was limited, with less than half of participants making changes or using study-provided resources during the 6-month post-intervention period. Conclusions: SHELf's reach and perceived effectiveness were moderate. The interventions were more effective among those reporting greater engagement with them (an implementation-related construct). Maintenance of newly acquired behaviours proved challenging. Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN39432901.
|dc.title||A process evaluation of the Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial|
|dcterms.source.title||International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity|
|curtin.department||School of Public Health|