Timothy L Barnes1, Natalie Colabianchi2, Darcy A Freedman3, Bethany A Bell4, Angela D Liese5. 1. Research Design and Analytics, Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Research in Nutrition and Health Disparities, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 2. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. 4. College of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Research in Nutrition and Health Disparities, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Electronic address: liese@sc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Geographic information systems (GISs) have been used to define fast food availability, with higher availability perhaps promoting poorer quality diets. Alternative measures involve perceptions; however, few studies have examined associations between GIS-derived and perceived measures of the food environment. METHODS: Telephone surveys of 705 participants within an eight-county region in South Carolina were analyzed using logistic regression to examine relationships between geographic presence of and distance to various types of food retailers and perceived fast food availability. RESULTS: The mean distance to the nearest fast food restaurant was 6.1 miles, with 16% of participants having a fast food restaurant within 1 mile of home. The geographic presence of and distance to all food retailer types were significantly associated with perceived availability of fast food in unadjusted models. After adjustment, only the presence of a fast food restaurant or pharmacy was significantly associated with greater odds of higher perceived availability of fast food. Greater odds of lower perceived availability of fast food were observed with the presence of a dollar store and increasing distance to the nearest supermarket or pharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of fast food availability, whether objective or perceived, may not be interchangeable. Researchers should carefully decide on the appropriate measurement tool-GIS-derived or perceived-in food environment studies.
PURPOSE: Geographic information systems (GISs) have been used to define fast food availability, with higher availability perhaps promoting poorer quality diets. Alternative measures involve perceptions; however, few studies have examined associations between GIS-derived and perceived measures of the food environment. METHODS: Telephone surveys of 705 participants within an eight-county region in South Carolina were analyzed using logistic regression to examine relationships between geographic presence of and distance to various types of food retailers and perceived fast food availability. RESULTS: The mean distance to the nearest fast food restaurant was 6.1 miles, with 16% of participants having a fast food restaurant within 1 mile of home. The geographic presence of and distance to all food retailer types were significantly associated with perceived availability of fast food in unadjusted models. After adjustment, only the presence of a fast food restaurant or pharmacy was significantly associated with greater odds of higher perceived availability of fast food. Greater odds of lower perceived availability of fast food were observed with the presence of a dollar store and increasing distance to the nearest supermarket or pharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of fast food availability, whether objective or perceived, may not be interchangeable. Researchers should carefully decide on the appropriate measurement tool-GIS-derived or perceived-in food environment studies.
Authors: Mark A Pereira; Alex I Kartashov; Cara B Ebbeling; Linda Van Horn; Martha L Slattery; David R Jacobs; David S Ludwig Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jan 1-7 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mary O Hearst; Lisa J Harnack; Katherine W Bauer; Alicia A Earnest; Simone A French; J Michael Oakes Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Katherine L Baldock; Catherine Paquet; Natasha J Howard; Neil T Coffee; Anne W Taylor; Mark Daniel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 3.390