Comparing shopper characteristics by online grocery ordering use among households in low-income communities in Maine.

OBJECTIVE: Online grocery shopping could improve access to healthy food, but it may not be equally accessible to all populations - especially those at higher risk for food insecurity. The current study aimed to compare the socio-demographic characteristics of families who ordered groceries online v. those who only shopped in-store. DESIGN: We analysed enrollment survey and 44 weeks of individually linked grocery transaction data. We used univariate χ2 and t-tests and logistic regression to assess differences in socio-demographic characteristics between households that only shopped in-store and those that shopped online with curbside pickup (online only or online and in-store). SETTING: Two Maine supermarkets. PARTICIPANTS: 863 parents or caregivers of children under 18 years old enrolled in two fruit and vegetable incentive trials. RESULTS: Participants had a total of 32 757 transactions. In univariate assessments, online shoppers had higher incomes (P < 0 0001), were less likely to participate in Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; P < 0 0001) and were more likely to be female (P = 0·04). Most online shoppers were 30-39 years old, and few were 50 years or older (P = 0·003). After controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, number of children, number of adults, income and SNAP participation, female primary shoppers (OR = 2·75, P = 0·003), number of children (OR = 1·27, P = 0·04) and income (OR = 3·91 for 186-300 % federal poverty line (FPL) and OR = 6·92 for >300 % FPL, P < 0·0001) were significantly associated with likelihood of shopping online. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study of Maine families, low-income shoppers were significantly less likely to utilise online grocery ordering with curbside pickup. Future studies could focus on elucidating barriers and developing strategies to improve access.

Comparing Online and In-Store Grocery Purchases.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the grocery shopping patterns of people who shopped both online and in-store and evaluate whether shoppers purchased fewer unhealthy, impulse-sensitive items online. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of 44 weeks of grocery transaction data collected for fruit and vegetable incentive trials in 2 Maine supermarkets. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 137 primary household shoppers who shopped at least once in-store and online (curbside pickup) for 5,573 total transactions MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: Paired t tests and descriptive analyses compared online and in-store transactions with respect to frequency, total spending, number of items purchased, and spending on 10 food groups and 34 subgroups. Mixed-effects regression models estimated differences in online vs in-store spending on 5 unhealthy, impulse-sensitive subgroups. RESULTS: When shopping online, participants spent 44% more per transaction ($113.58 vs $78.88, P < 0.001) and purchased more items (38.3 vs 26.6 items/transaction, P < 0.001). Compared with in-store, shopping online was associated with reduced spending per transaction on candy (-$0.65, P < 0.001), cold or frozen desserts (-$0.52, P < 0.001), and grain-based desserts (-$1.29, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Online shopping was associated with lower spending on certain unhealthy, impulse-sensitive foods. Grocery-based healthy eating initiatives might leverage online ordering platforms to increase their reach and effectiveness.

Calorie Labeling and Product Reformulation: A Longitudinal Analysis of Supermarket-Prepared Foods.

INTRODUCTION: The 2010 Affordable Care Act required chain retail food establishments, including supermarkets, to post calorie information for prepared (i.e., ready to eat) foods. Implementation of calorie labeling could spur companies to reduce the calorie content of prepared foods, but few studies have explored this. This study evaluates the changes in the calorie content of prepared foods at 2 large U.S. supermarket chains after they implemented calorie labels in April 2017. METHODS: The chains (≈1,200 stores) provided data on the calorie content and labeling status of all items sold between July 2015 and January 2019. In 2021, analyses used a difference-in-differences approach to examine the changes in the calorie content of prepared bakery, entree, and deli items introduced before calorie labeling to those introduced after the labeling compared with changes in similar foods not subject to the new labeling requirement. Primary analyses examined continuously available items; exploratory analyses examined items newly introduced to the marketplace. RESULTS: Relative to changes in comparison foods not subject to the labeling requirement, continuously available prepared bakery items decreased by 7.7 calories per item after calorie labels were implemented (95% CI= -12.9, -2.5, p=0.004, ≈0.5% reduction). In exploratory analyses, prepared bakery items introduced after calorie labeling contained 440 fewer calories per item than those introduced before calorie labeling (95% CI= -773.9, -106.1, p=0.01, ≈27% reduction), driven by reductions in product size. No changes were observed in the calorie content of continuously available or newly introduced prepared entrees or deli items. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing calorie labels could encourage product reformulation among some types of prepared supermarket foods. These supply-side changes could lead to reductions in caloric intake.

Supermarket Purchases Over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefit Month: A Comparison Between Participants and Nonparticipants.

INTRODUCTION: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides financial assistance for food and beverage purchases to approximately 1 in 7 Americans, with benefits distributed once monthly. Most Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits are spent early in the month, leading to decreased caloric intake later in the month. The effects of this early benefit depletion on the types of foods and beverages purchased over the course of the month is unclear. METHODS: Using individually tracked sales data from 950 participants enrolled in 2 supermarket-based RCTs in Maine (October 2015-April 2016 and October 2016-June 2017), purchases of selected food categories by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants (n=248) versus nonparticipants (n=702) in the first 2 weeks compared with the last 2 weeks of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit month were examined. Analyses were completed in 2019. RESULTS: For Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants, adjusted mean food spending decreased 37% from the first 2 weeks to the last 2 weeks of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit month (p<0.0001) compared with a 3% decrease (p=0.02) for nonparticipants. The decline in spending by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants occurred in all examined categories: vegetables (-25%), fruits (-27%), sugar-sweetened beverages (-30%), red meat (-37%), convenience foods (-40%), and poultry (-48%). Difference-in-difference estimators comparing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants with nonparticipants were statistically significant (p<0.05) for all examined categories. CONCLUSIONS: In the second half of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit month, individuals reduced purchases of all examined categories. More research is needed to understand the impact of these fluctuations in spending patterns on the dietary quality of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants.

Make It Fresh, for Less! A Supermarket Meal Bundling and Electronic Reminder Intervention to Promote Healthy Purchases Among Families With Children.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a supermarket meal bundling and electronic reminder intervention on food choices of families with children. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental (meal bundling) and randomized, controlled trial (electronic reminders). SETTING: Large supermarket in Maine during 40-week baseline and 16-week intervention periods in 2015-2016. PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking adults living with at least 1 child aged ≤18 years (n = 300) with 25% of households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. INTERVENTION(S): (1) Four bundles of ingredients needed to make 8 low-cost healthful meals were promoted in the store through displays and point-of-purchase messaging for 4 weeks each; (2) weekly electronic messages based on principles from behavioral psychology were sent to study participants reminding them to look for meal bundles in the store. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Difference in storewide sales and individual purchases of bundled items (measured using supermarket loyalty card data) from baseline to intervention in intervention vs control groups. ANALYSIS: Regressions controlling for total food spending and accounting for repeated measures. RESULTS: There were no differences in spending on bundled items resulting from the meal bundling intervention or the electronic reminders. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall, there was little impact of healthful meal bundles and electronic reminders on storewide sales or purchases of promoted items in a large supermarket.

A Supermarket Double-Dollar Incentive Program Increases Purchases of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Among Low-Income Families With Children: The Healthy Double Study.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a pilot study to determine whether a supermarket double-dollar fruit and vegetable (F&V) incentive increases F&V purchases among low-income families. DESIGN: Randomized controlled design. Purchases were tracked using a loyalty card that provided participants with a 5% discount on all purchases during a 3-month baseline period followed by the 4-month intervention. SETTING: A supermarket in a low-income rural Maine community. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 401 low-income and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) supermarket customers. INTERVENTION: Same-day coupon at checkout for half-off eligible fresh, frozen, or canned F&V over 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Weekly spending in dollars on eligible F&V. ANALYSIS: A linear model with random intercepts accounted for repeated transactions by individuals to estimate change in F&V spending per week from baseline to intervention. Secondary analyses examined changes among SNAP-eligible participants. RESULTS: Coupons were redeemed among 53% of eligible baskets. Total weekly F&V spending increased in the intervention arm compared with control ($1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], $0.29 to $3.88). The largest increase was for fresh F&V ($1.97; 95% CI, $0.49 to $3.44). Secondary analyses revealed greater increases in F&V spending among SNAP-eligible participants who redeemed coupons ($5.14; 95% CI, $1.93 to $8.34) than among non-SNAP eligible participants who redeemed coupons ($3.88; 95% CI, $1.67 to $6.08). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: A double-dollar pricing incentive increased F&V spending in a low-income community despite the moderate uptake of the coupon redemption. Customers who were eligible for SNAP saw the greatest F&V spending increases. Financial incentives for F&V are an effective strategy for food assistance programs to increase healthy purchases and improve dietary intake in low-income families.