Miranda R Blake1, Gary Sacks2, Christina Zorbas2, Josephine Marshall2, Liliana Orellana3, Amy K Brown4, Marj Moodie2,5, Cliona Ni Mhurchu6, Jaithri Ananthapavan2,5, Fabrice Etilé7, Adrian J Cameron2. 1. Deakin University, Geelong, Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Locked Bag 20000, Victoria, 3220, Geelong, Australia. miranda.blake@deakin.edu.au. 2. Deakin University, Geelong, Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Locked Bag 20000, Victoria, 3220, Geelong, Australia. 3. Biostatistics Unit, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, Victoria, 3220, Australia. 4. City of Greater Bendigo, PO Box 733, Bendigo, Victoria, 3552, Australia. 5. Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, Victoria, 3220, Australia. 6. National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. 7. Paris School of Economics and INRA, 48, Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Successful implementation and long-term maintenance of healthy supermarkets initiatives are crucial to achieving potential population health benefits. Understanding barriers and enablers of implementation of real-world trials will enhance wide-scale implementation. This process evaluation of a healthy supermarket intervention sought to describe (i) customer, retailer and stakeholder perspectives on the intervention; (ii) intervention implementation; and (iii) implementation barriers and enablers. METHODS:Eat Well @ IGA was a 12-month randomised controlled trial conducted in 11 Independent Grocers of Australia (IGA) chain supermarkets in regional Victoria, Australia (5 intervention and 6 wait-listed control stores). Intervention components included trolley and basket signage, local area and in-store promotion, and shelf tags highlighting the healthiest packaged foods. A sequential mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken. Customer exit surveys investigated demographics, and intervention recall and perceptions. Logistic mixed-models estimated associations between customer responses and demographics, with store as random effect. Supermarket staff surveys investigated staff demographics, interactions with customers, and intervention component feedback. Semi-structured stakeholder interviews with local government, retail and academic partners explored intervention perceptions, and factors which enabled or inhibited implementation, maintenance and scalability. Interviews were inductively coded to identify key themes. RESULTS:Of 500 customers surveyed, 33%[95%CI:23,44] recalled the Eat Well @ IGA brand and 97%[95%CI:93,99] agreed that IGA should continue its efforts to encourage healthy eating. The 82 staff surveyed demonstrated very favourable intervention perceptions. Themes from 19 interviews included that business models favour sales of unhealthy foods, and that stakeholder collaboration was crucial to intervention design and implementation. Staff surveys and interviews highlighted the need to minimise staff time for project maintenance and to regularly refresh intervention materials to increase and maintain salience among customers. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation found that interventions to promote healthy diets in supermarkets can be perceived as beneficial by retailers, customers, and government partners provided that barriers including staff time and intervention salience are addressed. Collaborative partnerships in intervention design and implementation, including retailers, governments, and academics, show potential for encouraging long-term sustainability of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN37395231 Registered 4 May 2017.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Successful implementation and long-term maintenance of healthy supermarkets initiatives are crucial to achieving potential population health benefits. Understanding barriers and enablers of implementation of real-world trials will enhance wide-scale implementation. This process evaluation of a healthy supermarket intervention sought to describe (i) customer, retailer and stakeholder perspectives on the intervention; (ii) intervention implementation; and (iii) implementation barriers and enablers. METHODS: Eat Well @ IGA was a 12-month randomised controlled trial conducted in 11 Independent Grocers of Australia (IGA) chain supermarkets in regional Victoria, Australia (5 intervention and 6 wait-listed control stores). Intervention components included trolley and basket signage, local area and in-store promotion, and shelf tags highlighting the healthiest packaged foods. A sequential mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken. Customer exit surveys investigated demographics, and intervention recall and perceptions. Logistic mixed-models estimated associations between customer responses and demographics, with store as random effect. Supermarket staff surveys investigated staff demographics, interactions with customers, and intervention component feedback. Semi-structured stakeholder interviews with local government, retail and academic partners explored intervention perceptions, and factors which enabled or inhibited implementation, maintenance and scalability. Interviews were inductively coded to identify key themes. RESULTS: Of 500 customers surveyed, 33%[95%CI:23,44] recalled the Eat Well @ IGA brand and 97%[95%CI:93,99] agreed that IGA should continue its efforts to encourage healthy eating. The 82 staff surveyed demonstrated very favourable intervention perceptions. Themes from 19 interviews included that business models favour sales of unhealthy foods, and that stakeholder collaboration was crucial to intervention design and implementation. Staff surveys and interviews highlighted the need to minimise staff time for project maintenance and to regularly refresh intervention materials to increase and maintain salience among customers. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation found that interventions to promote healthy diets in supermarkets can be perceived as beneficial by retailers, customers, and government partners provided that barriers including staff time and intervention salience are addressed. Collaborative partnerships in intervention design and implementation, including retailers, governments, and academics, show potential for encouraging long-term sustainability of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN37395231 Registered 4 May 2017.
Authors: Anne L Escaron; Ana P Martinez-Donate; Ann Josie Riggall; Amy Meinen; Beverly Hall; F Javier Nieto; Susan Nitzke Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2015-11-05
Authors: Kylie Ball; Sarah A McNaughton; Ha N D Le; Lisa Gold; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Gavin Abbott; Christina Pollard; David Crawford Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Etienne J Phipps; Leonard E Braitman; Shana D Stites; S Brook Singletary; Samantha L Wallace; Lacy Hunt; Saul Axelrod; Karen Glanz; Nadine Uplinger Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Guadalupe X Ayala; Heather D'Angelo; Joel Gittelsohn; Lucy Horton; Kurt Ribisl; Lesley Schmidt Sindberg; Christina Olson; Anna Kharmats; Melissa N Laska Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Dana Lee Olstad; Kylie Ball; Gavin Abbott; Sarah A McNaughton; Ha N D Le; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Christina Pollard; David A Crawford Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 6.457