Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included articles

From: Food environments and dietary intakes among adults: does the type of spatial exposure measurement matter? A systematic review

First author (date) Location Study design (year of data collection) Sample size (RF %) Dietary outcome Dietary assessment method Food outlet Food outlet classification Food outlet data source Geographic unit Spatial exposure measure Statistical analyses (adjustment variables) Number of relationships Number of associations Study quality (%)
Athens (2016)
[38]
Philadelphia and Baltimore, US Cross-sectional, random digit dial (2009–2010) 1598 (11) FF m/w FFQ FF
S
Standard Industrial Classification codes, annual gross sales Info USA 2011 Nearest intersection to participant’s home address Count
Presence
Proximity
Negative binomial regression (time period, sex, race, age, education, census tract poverty level and population density) 2 14 65
Bodor (2008)
[42]
New Orleans, US Cross-sectional,
Random digit dial (2001)
102 (50) F s/d
V s/d
24-h recall S
SS
Louisiana Office of Public Health annual gross sales codes Louisiana Office of Public Health 2001, ground-truth validation 2001 Participant’s home address Presence
Proximity
Multivariable linear regression (sex, ethnicity, age, income, food assistance participation, car ownership) 4 8 75
Dunn (2012)
[43]
Texas, US Cross-sectional,
Random digit dial, Brazos Valley Health Community Assessment, BVHA, rural, < 75 years (2006)
1064 (73.8) FF m/w FFQ FF Own criteria based on service style Brazos Valley Food Environment Project (BVFEP) comprehensive ground-truth survey 2006 Participant’s home address Count
Proximity
Ordered logistic regression (census tract fixed effects (not stated), instrumental variable (IV) of shortest distance to major roadway) 1 3 94
Layte (2011)
[44]
Ireland Cross-sectional, Irish Survey of Lifestyle Attitudes and Nutrition, SLAN (2007) 7501 (72) DASH score Validated Willett FFQ S
CS
NR NR Participant’s home address Count
Proximity (Euclidean and network distance)
Fixed effects, ordinary least squares regression of participants with outlet within 2 km of home (sex, age, marital status, education, household income, population density, car ownership) 2 9 50
Minaker (2013)
[45]
Ontario, Canada Cross-sectional, neighbourhood environments in Waterloo Region Patterns of Transportation and Health, NEWPATH, women only (2009–2010) 1170 (64) HEI-C 2-d food diary R
FS
CS + S
Own criteria, NR Local Public Health Inspection Database 2010, ground-truth survey 2010 Participant’s home address Count
Proximity
Diversity
RFEI
Multilevel linear regression (age, education, household income, car ownership, perceptions of food access and affordability) 3 6 81
Sharkey (2011)
[46]
Texas, US Cross-sectional, random digit dial Brazos Valley Health Community Assessment, BVHA, rural (2006) 1409 (73.8) FF m/w FFQ TFF
NFF
TFF + NFF
Own criteria based on service style and place of consumption Brazos Valley Food Environment Project (BVFEP) comprehensive ground-truth survey 2006 Participant’s home address Count
Proximity
Multivariable linear regression (sex, age, household income, race, BMI, household size, employment status) 3 12 94
Thornton (2012)
[23]
Glasgow, UK Cross-sectional, health and wellbeing survey, HWB (2002) 1041 (67) FV s/d
F s/d
V s/d
FFQ S Six chain supermarket: Asda, the Co-op, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Somerfield, Tesco Online yellow pages and company websites 2010, validated via street view and local knowledge Participants’ post code Count (Euclidean and network buffer)
Presence (Euclidean and network buffer)
Proximity
Euclidean kernel density estimation
Multilevel linear regression (sex, age, education) 3 69 54
Thornton (2009)
[47]
Melbourne, Australia Cross-sectional, Victorian Lifestyle and Neighbourhood Environment Study, VicLANES (2003) 2547 (64) FF purchase m/m
Weekly
Monthly
FFQ FF Five FF chains: Red Rooster, McDonalds, Kentucky
Fried Chicken, Hungry Jacks, Pizza Hut
White pages phone directory 2003–2004 Participant’s home address Count
Proximity
Variety
Multilevel multinomial regression (age, country of birth, household composition, education, occupation, income, attitudes and perceptions relating to food access; preference: taste and health, area-level disadvantage) 2 6 69
Turrell (2008)
[48]
Brisbane, Australia Cross-sectional, Brisbane Food Study (2000) 1001 (66.4) TA purchase m/m FFQ FFF
ITA
ATA
OTA
C
HTA
STA
Own criteria based on preparation, service/sale method and main type of food sold Brisbane City Council maps 2000, ground-truth survey 2000 Census Collection Districts Proximity
Average proximity
Density
Ordered multinomial regression (sex, age, family size, country of birth) 7 21 69
Williams (2010)
[49]
Melbourne, Australia Cross-sectional, socioeconomic status and activity in women, SESAW (2004) 351 (58) F s/d
V s/d
FFQ S
FVS
Own criteria NR, supermarkets included major and minor chains, independent and small grocers Local government and company websites, databases and online phone directories Participant’s home address Count
Proximity
Logistic regression bivariate associations 4 8 48
Zenk (2009) [50] Detroit, US Cross-sectional,
≥ 25 years
(2002–2003)
919 (55) FV mean s/d Semi-quantitative FFQ S + GS Own criteria NR, full-service chain grocery stores or super centres Michigan Department of Agriculture 2001, paper/online telephone directories, company websites 2001–2002, ground-truth survey 2002 Census blocks Presence
Proximity
Two level hierarchical linear regression (sex, age, household size, years in neighbourhood, marital status, race, education, income, employment, car ownership) 1 2 67
LeDoux (2014)
[41]
Detroit, US Cross-sectional, low income African American neighbourhood, (NR) 258 (10.3) FV s/m
Soda and juice s/m
Sweet and salty snacks s/m
FFQ S
CS
FF
Own criteria clearly reported Michigan Department of Agriculture, Detroit Economic Group, phone and internet directories, date NR Participant’s home address Count
Proximity
Negative binomial regression (sex, age, education, household income, exercise) 9 27 44
Bernsdorf (2017)
[39]
Copenhagen, Denmark Cross-sectional, Danish Capital Regional Health Survey (2010) 48,305 (52.3) FF ≥ once/w FFQ FF Danish industrial classification system DB03, Own criteria clearly reported Ministry of Environment and Food Register, ground-truth survey 2010 Participant’s home address Count
Proximity
Multilevel logistic regression (sex, age ethnicity, education, urbanicity, area SES) 1 8 77
Duran (2016) [40] Sao Paulo, Brazil Cross-sectional, (2011) 1842 (NR) FV ≥ 5 d/w
SSD ≥ 5 d/w
FFQ, validated S + GS + FVS Own criteria clearly reported Ground-truth survey 2010–2011 Participant’s home address Count
Proximity
Poisson generalised estimating equations (sex, age, education, income) 2 12 75
  1. RF response fraction (%), NR not reported, F fruit, FF fast-food, V vegetables, FV fruit and vegetables, SSD sugar sweetened drinks, DASH dietary approaches to stop hypertension, HEI-C healthy eating index adapted from Canada guidelines, m/w meals per week, s/d serves per day, s/m serves/month, d/w days per week, m/m meals per month, FFQ food frequency questionnaire, S supermarket, GS grocery store, SS small food store, TA takeaway, CS convenience store, FFF major chain fast food franchise, ITA general independent takeaway store, ATA Asian takeaway restaurant, OTA other ethnic takeaway restaurant, C café/coffee shop, HTA healthier takeaway store, STA sweet food takeaway, FVS fruit and vegetable store, FS food store, R restaurant, TFF traditional fast food, NFF non-traditional fast food, BMI body mass index (kg/m2), SES socioeconomic status