Health-related outcomes of new grocery store interventions: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence of the impact of new food store (supermarket/grocery store) interventions on selected health-related outcomes. DESIGN: A systematic review following the Effective Public Health Practice Project guidelines. All quantitative studies were assessed for their methodological quality. Results were synthesized narratively. SETTING: Eight electronic databases - MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ProQuest Public Health, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library - were searched to identify relevant records. SUBJECTS: Peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles on new grocery store/supermarket interventions with adult study populations, published in the English language after 1995. RESULTS: Eleven records representing seven new grocery store interventions were identified. Six were assessed having 'weak' methodological quality, one as 'moderate' and two as 'strong'. All studies reported fruit and vegetable consumption but results were not consistent, some studies reporting significantly more and others no increase in consumption. BMI and self-rated health did not show significant improvements. Perceptions of food access, neighbourhood satisfaction and psychological health showed significant improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Improved food access through establishment of a full-service food retailer, by itself, does not show strong evidence towards enhancing health-related outcomes over short durations. Presently the field is developing and the complex linking pathways/mechanisms are yet to be elucidated. Further evidence, in the form of high-quality research in different communities with longer follow-up periods, is needed to inform policy decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".