Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
RESEARCH
Open Access
Increasing access to healthful foods: a qualitative
study with residents of low-income communities
Alexandra Evans1*, Karen Banks2, Rose Jennings1, Eileen Nehme1, Cori Nemec1, Shreela Sharma1, Aliya Hussaini3,
Amy Yaroch4
Abstract
Background: Inadequate access to healthful foods has been identified as a significant barrier to healthful dietary
behaviors among individuals who live in low-income communities. The purpose of this study was to gather lowincome community members’ opinions about their food purchasing choices and their perceptions of the most
effective ways to increase access to healthful foods in their communities.
Methods: Spanish and English focus groups were conducted in low-income, ethnically-diverse communities.
Participants were asked about their knowledge, factors influencing their food purchasing decisions, and their
perceptions regarding solutions to increase access to healthful foods.
Results: A total of 148 people participated in 13 focus groups. The majority of participants were female and
ethnically diverse (63% Hispanic, 17% African American, 16% Caucasian, and 4% “other”). More than 75% of the
participants reported making less than $1999 USD per month. Participants reported high levels of knowledge and
preference for healthful foods. The most important barriers influencing healthful shopping behaviors included high
price of healthful food, inadequate geographical access to healthful food, poor quality of available healthful food,
and lack of overall quality of the proximate retail stores. Suggested solutions to inadequate access included
placement of new chain supermarkets in their communities. Strategies implemented in convenience stores were
not seen as effective. Farmers’ markets, with specific stipulations, and community gardens were regarded as
beneficial supplementary solutions.
Conclusion: The results from the focus groups provide important input from a needs assessment perspective from
the community, identify gaps in access, and offer potential effective solutions to provide direction for the future.
Background
In 2012, food insecurity—or lack of consistent access to
enough nutritious food to meet the needs of all household members because of insufficient money or other
resources for food—was experienced by approximately
17.6 million households in the United States (U.S.) [1].
Food insecurity places individuals at greater risk for
engaging in less healthful dietary behaviors and consuming fewer servings of fruits and vegetables (F&V), dairy
foods, and complex micronutrients compared to individuals who are food secure [2,3]. A strong relationship
between food insecurity and poverty exists, with higher
* Correspondence: Alexandra.E.Evans@uth.tmc.edu
1
Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas
School of Public Health Austin Regional Campus, Austin, TX, USA
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
rates of food insecurity and hunger occurring among
individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES) [2].
Food access is a critical component of food insecurity,
and it is often considered a function of a variety of factors,
including the spatial proximity to food resources, as well
as the affordability, cultural appropriateness, and the nutritional adequacy of available resources. Limited food access
has been found to disproportionately affect low-income
individuals who are more likely to live in communities
with limited availability of healthful foods, specifically
fresh fruits and vegetables [1,4-10]. These types of underserved communities, often referred to as “food deserts”
[5], tend to have few food retailers who sell healthful food
products (e.g., fresh F&V) and more food retailers who sell
less healthful foods [11-13]. Low-income individuals living
in communities with limited healthful food access tend to
have less healthful diets and run a higher risk for chronic
© 2015 Evans et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/
zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
disease, such as various cancers, cardiovascular disease,
and Type 2 diabetes, compared to individuals living in
higher income communities [8,13-15].
According to data provided by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), 23.5 million people
(approximately 20%) in the U.S. live in low-income
communities more than 1 mile from a supermarket.
Additional data show that people living in low-income
areas with limited access spend significantly more time
(19.5 min) traveling to a supermarket compared to the
national average (15 min) [16]. As a result of the relatively high prevalence of U.S. households living in communities with limited access and the noted health
disparities among those living in these type of communities, federal and local initiatives are underway to
increase both geographic and economic access to more
healthful foods. Current strategies include increasing
geographic access by increasing points of healthful food
access [17-20]. Although there has been an emphasis on
placing more chain supermarkets in food deserts [9],
other geographic strategies to improve the healthfulness
of the community food environment include changing
the inventory of convenience stores (i.e., small retail
stores which typically sell a limited variety of staple groceries and snacks), increasing the number of farmers’
markets and farm stands, and establishing community
gardens [18,19]. In addition to efforts to increase geographic access to more healthful foods, strategies to
increase economic access are also being implemented.
These types of strategies include pricing schemes (i.e.,
decreasing price of more healthful foods and/or increasing price of less healthful foods) at supermarkets, convenience stores, and at farmers’ markets (e.g., Double
Dollar or Double Up Food Bucks Program incentives
which provides consumers with incentives that match
the value of their federal nutrition benefits when used to
purchase fresh, local produce at participating farm-toretail venues) [21].
Both geographic and economic strategies are being
implemented in communities all across the U.S. with relatively little evidence that they are effective and with almost
no input from community stakeholders regarding the feasibility and cultural appropriateness of these strategies.
The purpose of this paper is to present in-depth qualitative data obtained from focus groups with residents living
in underserved, low-income communities about their food
purchasing choices and their perceptions of the most
effective ways to increase access to more healthful foods in
their own communities. The results from the focus groups
will provide important input to help inform lay communities as well as identify gaps to help provide direction for
future intervention efforts. Although we located two focus
groups studies conducted in food deserts in Great Britain
Page 2 of 12
[22,23], this study is unique because, to the best of the
authors’ knowledge, no other studies in the United States
have explored these issues in a qualitative, comprehensive
manner.
Methods
For this study, qualitative data regarding access to more
healthful foods (defined in this study as F&V) were collected from 148 adults living in low-income food desert
areas in central Texas in spring 2011. Specifically, focus
group participants were asked about their knowledge of
healthful eating, factors influencing their food purchasing
decisions, and their perceptions regarding solutions to
increase access to more healthful foods. Institutional
Review Board approvals from The University of Texas at
Austin and The University of Texas Health Science Center
were obtained before commencement of the study.
Participants
Focus group participants were recruited from 11 geographically proximate zip codes, with high concentrations of
individuals living in households below the poverty
threshold and with limited access to healthy food, as
defined by the lack of a chain supermarket in the community within one mile from the majority of residents
[24]. Figure 1 illustrates the study area and the location
of chain supermarkets within that area. Of the 11 zip
codes in the study area, five lacked a supermarket, with
the nearest grocery store between 3 and 15 miles away.
Table 1 compares demographic information from the
study area from which focus group participants were
recruited to demographics from Texas and the U.S.
In order to recruit a random sample of community
residents, over 20 community leaders, including church
pastors, social service providers, non-profit directors, and
neighborhood association members, were contacted to
help determine venues and times for the focus groups.
Flyers were distributed to schools, churches, community
recreation centers, select businesses, and door-to-door.
Inclusion criteria for participation were: 1) resident of
one of the 11 zip codes included in our study, 2) responsibility for purchase of most household food, and 3) ages
18-65 years. While this study explicitly focused on the
needs of low-income residents, specific income level was
not a requirement for participation. However, given that
the communities were all considered low income, it was
assumed that most of the participants would be low
income and exposed to a low-income community environment. Interested and eligible individuals were asked to
contact the research team or attend a scheduled focus
group meeting. For participating in the focus groups,
participants were given a small bag of local farm-fresh
produce worth approximately $20 USD.
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
Page 3 of 12
Figure 1 Food stores in study area
Focus group
The focus group sessions were interactive discussions
guided by 15 open-ended questions using a standardized
focus group protocol that lasted approximately one hour
[25]. The questions were developed using the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) concept of food
security as a guiding framework. The USDA defines food
security as access by all people at all times to enough
nutritious food for an active, healthy life and encompasses both geographic and economic access to healthy
food [1]. Questions were developed to specifically examine participants’ perceptions with regard to what constitutes a more healthful diet, factors influencing foodpurchasing decisions, and how to increase geographic
and economic access to healthful food in the participants’
communities. Three examples of questions included in
this study were: 1) How often do you normally purchase
food? 2) What are some reasons that limit the amount of
fresh fruits and vegetables you buy? 3) What would help
increase your consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables?
Each question had specific prompts that were used when
necessary. The questions focused on three specific venues
where residents are able to obtain food: supermarkets,
convenience stores, and farmers’ markets. These venues
were chosen because they provide, in theory, equal access
to all community members living in a specific community. During the focus groups, participants also mentioned community and school gardens, thus these points
of access will also be discussed in this paper. The focus
group scripts were developed in English, then translated
into Spanish, and then back translated into English by a
native-Spanish speaker.
Data collection
A total of 13 focus groups (7= Spanish; 6=English) were
conducted (n=148) by trained moderators with experience in conducting both English and Spanish focus
groups. In addition to the regular moderator, an assistant
moderator was used for each focus group as well. Spanish
focus groups were conducted either by a trained, fluent
Spanish speaker or by a trained English speaker accompanied by a bilingual translator. Before the start of each
session, research staff obtained written informed consent
from all participants. All study materials were available in
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
Page 4 of 12
Table 1. Comparison of specific demographic variables at
study, state and national level
Demographics
Study
Area
Texas
United
States
Median Age
31.3
33.6
37.21
% White
59.9
70.4
72.41
% Black or African American
11.6
11.8
12.61
% Hispanic
% Asian
49.4
3.9
37.2
3.8
16.31
4.81
9.8
7.3
6.02
40,146 50,920
53,0462
% Unemployed
Median Income
% Enrolled in SNAP in the Past 12
Months
19.17
11.2
11.42
% Individuals Below Poverty Level3
25.75
17
10.92
% High School Graduates
71.784
80.8
85.72
% Spanish Speaking Household
46.71
29.3
29.42
% Living in Same House a Year Ago
77.85
82.1
n/a
1
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey
3
Poverty is determined when the total household income of the
householder’s family falls below the appropriate poverty threshold
(determined by: size of family, number of related children, and, for 1- and
2-person families, age of householder).
4
Average percentage graduation rates of all 11 zip codes represented by
study participants.
2
both English and Spanish. At the start of the focus groups,
participants completed a short socio-demographic (e.g.,
race/ethnicity, sex, age, participant employment, and food
security status) and specific food behaviors survey (e.g.,
frequency of food preparation, frequency of dinner eaten
at home). The socio-demographic questions were drawn
from an earlier study conducted with a very similar population [26]. The sessions lasted approximately 45-60 minutes and all sessions were audio taped. Upon completion
of the focus groups, trained research assistants transcribed
the audiotapes. Spanish focus groups were transcribed in
Spanish, checked for accuracy against original recordings,
translated into English by a native Spanish speaker, and
back-translated into Spanish for quality control.
Data analysis
In order to describe the sample, frequencies for specific
variables on the quantitative questionnaire were calculated. For the qualitative data analysis, a thematic content
analysis approach was used. Each transcript was entered
into the qualitative software package QSR NVivo (version
8, 2008, QSR International Pty Ltd, Cambridge, MA).
Two independent coders experienced in the analysis of
qualitative data reviewed the interviews and decided on a
coding scheme based on the focus group questions and
the recurrent themes found in the transcripts. In addition, a set of decision rules to standardize the coding procedure was created. The two coders then went back
through all the transcripts and assigned specific codes to
each segment of text that corresponded to each index
code and corresponding subcategories. Organization of
coded and sub-coded passages of the transcribed text
was examined and differences in coding were resolved
through consensus by the two coders. Emergent themes
were identified through frequency of coding within similar contexts and across focus groups. All index codes that
were mentioned less than three times were not included
in further analyses. [25].
Results and discussion
Participants
A total of 148 people participated in 13 focus groups.
The majority of participants were female and the total
sample was ethnically diverse: 63% Hispanic, 17% African
American, 16% Caucasian, and 4% “other.” Among Hispanic participants, the majority (54%) reported speaking
Spanish most of the time. Approximately three-fourths of
participants (72%) reported making less than $1999 USD
per month and 68% reported sometimes or almost always
“running out of food by the end of the month.” (See
Table 2).
According to the Center for Public Priorities, a family
of four with two adults needs to earn a gross monthly
income between $4198 USD to afford to “get by” in Central Texas [27]. Based on this estimate, only about 12%
percent of the focus group participants earned enough to
afford to live comfortably in Central Texas. However,
only 30% of the participants received SNAP benefits and
only 21% received Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
benefits, which may be one reason 68% of the participants reported sometimes or almost always feeling food
insecure. These numbers suggest that strategies that
increase economic access to food are important for this
population.
Summary of qualitative results
The following themes were derived from the data:
1) High level of knowledge about healthy eating, 2) Factors influencing food purchasing decisions include: cost
of food (economic access), distance to retail store (geographic access), quality of food and quality of retail
stores, 3) Suggested ways to improve physical access to
healthful foods through supermarkets, convenience
stores, farmers’ markets and community gardens, 4)
Suggested way to increase economic access to healthful
foods.
Knowledge of healthful eating
A review of psychosocial factors associated with fruit
and vegetables intake among adults showed knowledge
as a significant predictor of F&V consumption across an
array of socio-demographic populations [28]. In our
study, focus group participants were very knowledgeable
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
Page 5 of 12
Table 2. Description of focus group participants (n = 148)
Number
Percent
Female
107
85%
Male
41
15%
Gender
Ethnicity/Race
Black or African American
25
16.89%
Hispanic or Latino
94
63.51%
White
24
16.22%
Other
Language spoken at home
5
3.38%
Spanish
80
54.05%
English
65
43.92%
Other
2
1.35%
I don’t know
1
0.68%
Married
72
48.65%
Separated or divorced
Single, never married
30
34
20.27%
22.97%
Widowed
12
8.11%
Marital Status
Highest Level of Education
Less than 12 years
44
29.73%
High school graduate/GED
47
31.76%
Some college
23
15.54%
College graduate
27
18.24%
Missing
Total Household Income/Month
7
6.08%
$0 – 999 USD
55
37.16%
$1000 – 1999
51
34.46%
$2000 – 2999
14
9.46%
$3000 – 3999
3
2.03%
$4000 +
13
8.78%
Missing
12
9.46%
Receive WIC vouchers
No
117
79.05%
Yes
31
20.95%
No
99
66.89%
Yes
43
29.05%
Missing
6
5.41%
Almost always
Sometimes
55
45
37.16%
30.41%
Not very often
48
32.43%
Receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Benefits (SNAP)
Run out of food before end of month because can’t afford to buy more
of what it means to eat healthy. The majority of the participants used consumption of fruits and vegetables (F&V)
as a proxy when answering questions about healthy foods
in general. Participants unanimously agreed that a variety
of F&V is an essential part of a more healthful diet. They
listed F&V as more healthful because—in their opinion—
these foods provide vitamins, nourishment, strength, help
lower cholesterol, cause one to think clearly, and prevent
diet-related diseases. On participant noted that F&V
“help your body balance and process everything properly.” The words “fresh,” “organic,” “seasonal” and “local”
were all mentioned in connection to F&V and health, in
that respective order of frequency. Results from other
studies concur with our findings that levels of knowledge
about healthy foods among low-income shoppers tends
to be high [29], suggesting that lack of knowledge is not
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
the driving factor influencing food purchasing and dietary behaviors among this population [26,30,31].
Factors influencing food purchasing decisions
Despite the high level of knowledge about the components of a healthy diet, participants voiced several external barriers to consuming more healthful foods. The
four most common influences reported included high
cost of healthful foods, inadequate geographical access
to healthful food, poor quality of available healthful
food, and lack of overall quality of the proximate retail
stores. Focus group participants identified high cost as
the number one factor affecting food choice: “We always
look for what’s more economical.” For families with limited financial resources, the need to stay within a fixed
budget caused a trade-off between more healthful foods
and, oftentimes, less healthy but calorie-dense foods,
such as meat. As one participant reported: “I look at the
asparagus and I realize that I can buy a big rib eye for
the same price so I get the rib eye.” F&V were viewed as
very healthy but not as satiating as other foods, posing a
dilemma for families who were forced to choose
between their health values and meeting their basic
caloric needs. The price of food and budget restrictions
also limited families’ options in the variety of foods purchased and ways food was prepared. Participants
reported “rarely” or “not regularly” shopping with a prepared grocery list, rather shopping for the same products every week or “looking for special sales” because
the cost of the food and preparation methods were
known and the amount of food wasted was limited.
Similar results were found in another focus group study
with residents of food deserts. In this study, younger
mothers with children cited financial constraints as
greatly influencing their food purchasing decisions [22].
Although cost of food was the dominating factor
affecting food-purchasing decisions, the distance to a
supermarket or large grocery store that carried higher
quality products was also a major concern for participants. In some cases, residents reported having to travel
up to 20 miles to buy groceries. Particularly for participants who did not own a car, transportation to supermarkets was a hardship and potentially very expensive
as some participants reported taking a taxi to the store
due to poor and uncoordinated public transportation.
Even participants who did own a car cited high gasoline
prices as a barrier to driving to supermarkets outside
their community. As one participant noted, “I always
look for the closest place because I can save gas and
sometimes there are things that are cheaper at certain
places, and we know they are on sale, but also if the
store is too far you have to have in mind the traffic, the
time and the gas, so I prefer to buy the food in the one
that is closest whether it’s more expensive or not.” For
Page 6 of 12
many of the families in the study, grocery shopping is
not a solitary errand. It requires forethought to incorporate this activity into one’s daily commute or combine
with other errands in order to save gas money and
requires advanced preparation (e.g., placing a cooler full
of ice in the car so food does not spoil).
Quality of both the available foods and the retail
stores were also consistent factors mentioned as important influences on food purchasing decisions. Terms like
fresh, not mildewed, not wilted, not bruised, not rotten,
good appearance, good shape, and pretty were used to
describe food of high quality. High quality stores were
described as having a nice physical condition, clean,
good upkeep, not too much traffic or panhandling in the
parking lot. Many participants who did live near a
supermarket or grocery store mentioned that the quality
of foods, especially produce and prepared foods, at the
local supermarkets and grocery stores was greatly inferior compared to food items sold at other supermarkets
across town in higher-income neighborhoods on the
west side of town (Figure 1). In fact, some participants
stated that when they had the opportunity, they would
try to go to a store much further away because the quality of foods found at those stores was better. However,
among other participants this was rare, since it was hard
to justify a trip to a better store with the high price of
gas “because if it’s too expensive, it’s not convenient for
you to go too far because you’ll spend more [on gas] than
what you have.” Thus, even though these individuals
had relatively easy geographic access to a supermarket,
they did not have access to quality food. This underscores the need to not only provide geographic and economic access, but also access to quality products.
In summary, results from the focus groups confirmed
that both economic and geographic access are major factors influencing how low-income individuals shop for
their food. The four specific factors that influence how
and where food purchases are made include: price of
food, geographic access, quality of food for sale, and quality of store. Other studies have found similar results and
underscore the importance of the affordability, variety,
and quality of food as well as proximity to grocery stores
as main influences on where to shop [31-36].
Increasing geographic access to healthful foods
When asked how access to healthful foods could be
improved, responses depended somewhat on the geographic location of where participants lived. However, all
focus group conversations included comments about
supermarkets, convenience stores, and alternative venues
such as farmers’ markets and community gardens.
Supermarkets
Participants living in areas with no supermarket consistently stated that the solution to increase access to more
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
healthful foods was to build a conveniently located
supermarket offering a wide variety of quality items in a
convenient location. For those participants already living
close to a supermarket, solutions focused on increasing
the quality of food available in the store and on improving the overall quality of the store. Some participants
also mentioned expanding services provided by stores
and have stores create common spaces for community
classes on how to grow food and hosting regular farmers’
markets.
Participants specifically preferred supermarkets over
smaller-sized grocery stores because supermarkets
offered a variety of other needed services (e.g., payment
of bills, etc.). One participant shared her thoughts about
a supermarket: “Whenever you go to [the store], you can
also pay your bills; it’s faster, you can use other services
there. That way, I only go to one place and at the same
time I get my groceries like the fruits, the tuna, the nopales
[cactus], everything is there, ready!” For some participants, a larger size meant variety: “I like the big [store]
because it’s got everything in there. I mean you could just
go in there and have a field day. You can shop!” This
result was also found in a focus group conducted in an
area of Great Britain considered to be a food desert [22].
Given that the most commonly cited barriers to the purchase of more healthful foods by participants were cost,
lack of geographic access, and lack of quality produce,
introducing new supermarkets in communities would
seem to be a logical solution. However, past studies indicate that the simple placement of a new supermarket in a
food desert or similar type of community does not necessarily translate into an increase of healthier food purchasing or healthier food intake [37-41]. Only two studies have
found significant positive results after a new grocery store
was introduced into a community [37,41]. The results
from one study show that among participants with “very
poor” diets at pre-intervention, F&V consumption
increased from 4.13 portions to 9.83 portions per week,
and among participants with “poor” diets, 60% increased
F&V consumption [37]. It is important to note that while
each of the studies examined the impact of a new supermarket, there is a lack of consistency across each of the
studies. For example, while the new supermarket evaluated
by Sadler et al. (2013) increased geographic access, the
authors imply that food prices were relatively higher at
this independent grocer compared to other available alternatives; thus, in this low-income community, economic
access was not improved by the new store [38]. One reason for the mixed results may be that supermarkets
increase availability of both healthful and unhealthful
foods, which may translate into more purchases of both
healthful and unhealthful foods [42].
On the other hand, results from studies assessing the
impact of intervention strategies placed within an
Page 7 of 12
already existing supermarket, including increasing availability of healthful foods and making healthful foods
more affordable, tend to be positive. A review of 58 articles published from the late 1940s to July 2012 evaluating the impact of interventions implemented in
supermarkets to promote healthful food choices and eating practices found that the combination of pricing,
increasing availability of healthful foods, points-ofpurchase signage, and advertising is an effective strategy
to increase the purchase of more healthful food items
[43]. A recent study by Waterlander et al. (2013) also
found that a 50% discount on fresh F&V throughout a
six-month period in supermarkets resulted in a significant increase in F&V purchases and consumption [44].
At a three month follow-up, after price discounts had
ceased, the impact on F&V purchasing and consumption
had ceased as well, suggesting that price adjustments
must be maintained to maintain purchasing behaviors,
especially since F&V tend to be more price elastic than
other foods [45].
In summary, evidence from the literature suggests that
increasing geographic access by simply placing supermarkets in food deserts may not increase the purchase and
consumption of healthful foods. However, altering costs
of foods and increasing availability of healthful foods in
already-existing stores does seem to positively impact
consumers’ purchasing and consumption behaviors.
Given that placing a grocery store in a low-income area
can be a lengthy and complicated process (e.g., lengthy
approval procedures from city government) and is not
always an economically practical option for retailers [46],
improving the quality of already-existing grocery stores,
if available, may be a more viable option. If no supermarket or grocery store is already available, then introducing
a new supermarket that offers competitive prices and a
variety of affordable, high quality foods will increase
access and potentially will increase more healthful dietary
behaviors, including increased F&V consumption.
Convenience stores
When participants were specifically asked about their use
of convenience stores for food purchasing, the overall
sentiment was very negative. Convenience stores were
typically perceived to be too expensive, as reflected by a
participant who stated, “…I’d prefer to grab my car and
go to Store A (local chain retail store) instead. It’s more
economical.” Another participant felt that convenient
stores “conveniently make that price ridiculous.” Convenience stores also were perceived as having limited and
very low-quality food products, especially produce. One
participant was put out by having to go to corner stores
since there weren’t enough large grocery stores nearby,
noting “most of them have processed foods.” Participants
reported a general feeling of frustration and mistrust
towards convenience store businesses. One participant
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
expressed, “My thing is that I don’t [shop at] the convenience store, even though I’m wasting 5 or 6 bucks worth of
gas not going in, I’m still not going to give him $5 or $6 for
a pack of bacon. I can’t do it. I would rather spend the $5
or $6 on gas and go to [store B]. Them knowing there is no
access to this type of stuff so they mark the food up real
high. That’s not cool.”
Transformation of convenience stores to sell healthier
foods has been posited as an alternative or interim solution to the introduction of chain supermarkets. Gittelsohn
et al. (2012) published a review of 16 original articles
examining the impact of strategies to increase access to
more healthful foods in convenience stores [47]. The most
common strategies tested in the reviewed studies focused
on increasing the availability of healthier foods, reducing
the availability of unhealthy foods, reducing the cost of
healthy, foods or providing cash incentives for healthful
foods. Results of the review found that food purchasing
and consumption patterns improved in 9 of the 10 trials
that assessed this outcome [47]. In addition, results from a
more recent study showed that greater exposure to the
intervention (i.e., increasing healthy food availability in
local food stores and promotion of these foods through
point-of-purchase and community media interventions)
was associated with significantly reduced body mass index
(p≤0.05) and improved healthy food intentions (p≤0.01),
healthy cooking methods (p≤0.05) and healthy food purchasing (p≤0.01) [48]. Another recent study assessed the
effectiveness of an initiative to increase the availability and
promotion of healthier food options in 55 convenience
stores in New York City. The percentage of consumers
surveyed who purchased healthier options that were promoted through the initiative increased from 5% to 16%
[49]. In summary, evidence from the literature suggests
that implementing strategies that increase the availability
and affordability of healthful foods in convenience stores
can be effective in increasing healthier food purchasing
and consumption.
Although published studies have shown positive outcomes of strategies tested within convenience stores, participants of our focus group study perceived convenience
stores as offering lower quality foods and preferred to go
without or drive the extra distance to access larger stores
that offered more variety at a more reasonable cost. Our
focus group results differed from another study conducted with mostly African-American participants in
New Orleans which showed that this population was
highly likely to shop at convenience stores [50]. These
mixed results could be due to the perception that—in
our study—store owners lacked community investment
because they were from outside the community. It is also
possible that car ownership is greater in Texas compared
to other states. Having a car gives one the ability to
forego an undesirable store for one that is further away
Page 8 of 12
[51]. However, since gas was a big expense for our participants, owning a car may not necessarily solve the issue
of lack of a proximal supermarket.
Given the negative perception of convenience stores by
members of our focus groups, efforts to incentivize
convenience stores to carry a larger variety of healthier
products may not be the most effective solution in communities similar to the communities where our focus
group study was conducted. In order for our participants
to shop at convenience stores, negative perceptions about
convenience store businesses need to be improved first.
If perceptions are not changed, individuals may not
perceive conveniences stores as a viable option for the
purchase of foods and thus will not be affected by the
strategies implemented within the convenience stores.
Farmers’ markets
Farmer’s markets as a point of access for purchasing fresh
produce were discussed among participants with varied
reactions. Conceptually, farmers’ markets were appealing,
with the provision of easily accessible, fresh, and often
organic produce. However, there was also resistance to
farmers’ markets based on reactions to previous experiences with existing farmers’ markets. A majority of the
participants reported that current markets were too
expensive, too far away, and operated at inconvenient
times. Although many of the participants had heard about
farmers’ markets, only a few were familiar with their current locations, which was not convenient for the majority
of the focus group participants. Produce at farmers markets was seen as high quality but also as cost-prohibitive.
One community member remarked, “I’ve been and I liked
it because the veggies taste different, the tomatoes taste
different, everything is fresh…but it’s more expensive.”
Farmers’ markets were also critiqued for the undesirable quantities of produce and lack of other goods compared to grocery stores: “There is not a lot of variety, I
have been but there is not too much variety, just like
tomatoes and peppers.” Additionally, the preset quantities of produce offered at some farmers’ markets were
either too large or too small for what participants
needed. One person remarked, “The thing is that they
[farmers’ markets] already have the quantity that they
want to sell. Like how they have the tomatoes in a little
basket…sometimes you can’t buy the tomatoes because
they are $3, and so you don’t have enough money left to
buy the peppers. I can’t just buy what I need… On the
other hand, if you go to [store B] you can just buy one
tomato.”
Past studies indicate that introducing new farmers’
markets or farm stands in low income communities can
increase F&V intake among the residents who live close
to the farmers’ market [52]. Additional studies have also
examined the impact of farmers’ market-based economic
strategies on nutrition-related outcomes. McCormack et
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
al (2012) reviewed 12 studies which all focused on providing economic incentives for specific populations to
purchase F&V at farmers’ markets [53]. In general, the
results from these studies suggest that providing economic incentives for purchasing produce at farmers’
markets increases both purchasing of produce at farmers’ markets and vegetable intake among participants
[53]. Another study by Freedman et al (2013) examined
the effect of placing farmers’ markets at federally qualified health clinics along with offering financial incentives
to low-income diabetics and found a marginally significant increase in F&V consumption [54]. Thus, in summary, farmers’ markets may serve as an alternative
venue to offer fresh, high quality produce. When combined with financial schemes such as the Double Dollar
program or the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program
(FMNP)—an incentive program which allows recipients
of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to purchase
locally grown produce sold at farmers’ markets with free
FMNP coupons—the dollars spent at the farmers’ market can be stretched and more produce can be bought
at a lower price [55].
Evidence from both the published literature and the
focus groups in the current study suggest that adding
more farmers’ markets can be a positive improvement
for fresh and high quality F&V access, as long at the
markets operate at consistent and convenient times and
at convenient locations. Convenient locations suggested
by participants for new farmers’ markets included local
schools and parking lots of grocery stores. Adding strategies to increase economic access to markets may be
especially effective.
Community gardens
Although not a direct point of access for food purchasing, gardening and community gardens were brought up
by focus group participants as alternative ways to
improve access to fresh produce. The notion of growing
one’s food was tangible, and to some participants represented a waning generational skill: “… like we did many
years ago, you know, right out of the garden. Right there
from your farm, your own animals, your own vegetables
too.” However, the issue of lack of time was often connected to the idea of gardening to supplement healthy
foods: “Growing your own veggies, I have always wanted
to do that but I never have time.” At the same time, gardening carried with it other intangible benefits, especially for their children, that seemed to outweigh the
challenge of time: “I think it’s important…it’s important
to find a way to have the time to teach kids how to cultivate plants and take care of them, love them, and then
eat them…it would be a different and new culture in the
kids’ lives.” Parents in many of the focus groups favored
the idea of school gardens as a viable option for
Page 9 of 12
increasing food access and teaching children about
healthy foods, and several parents shared stories about
the impact of existing school gardens had on their
children.
A recent review article measuring the nutritional
effects of community gardens found that community
garden participants reported a higher likelihood of F&V
intake compared to non-gardeners [53]. A more recent
longitudinal study reported the results of an intervention
designed to support Hispanic farmworker families to
grow a home garden. The intervention provided home
garden materials, group educational and social activities,
and volunteer assistance to participating families. Results
indicated that at the end of the study, participants
reported increased vegetable intake compared to baseline measurement [56].
Results from the published literature and our focus
group findings found positive results for the use of community gardens on individuals’ F&V consumption.
Although community gardens can rarely feed entire
communities, these results suggest that community gardens and possibly school gardens can serve as way to
both educate and create higher demand for locally
grown produce. Thus, additional efforts in creating
more of these points of access and providing additional
education on how to grow produce could be relatively
easy and inexpensive strategies to implement in lowincome communities.
Increasing economic access to healthful foods
Although general food prices have tended to decrease
over the past decades, food prices for F&V increased by
17% between 1997 and 2003 [57]. Given that higher
priced F&V are associated with child BMI [58], decreasing the cost of these specific healthful foods is critical.
When asked for potential solutions to the high cost of
more healthful food, participants provided several strategies that they currently use to help with food costs.
Many participants reported often seeking out sales or
specials and comparing store prices in order to be able
to purchase more for less. One participant referred to
herself and her friends as “coupon-aholics” in order to
save money. Similar findings were reported in a study
with low-income individuals who identified strategies
such as using coupons, limiting variety, gardening, purchasing dented cans, and diluting as ways to stretch a
food dollar [59].
Another way that participants save money is to prepare meals for their families at home. Responses from
the focus groups and to the survey questions indicated
that most participants consistently prepared at least one
meal per day, mainly dinner, at home. Data from the
short quantitative questionnaire that participants completed before the focus groups indicated that over 52%
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
of respondents reported that their family eats dinner
together at home almost every day while another 31%
eat together more than 50% of the time (data not
shown). Eating at home was reported to be both more
economical and healthier. Lastly, in order to save money
on produce, some respondents reported buying produce
in season only.
Limitations and strengths
This study utilized a convenience sample and included
only adults living in low-income communities with limited access to healthful foods. This limits the generalizability of this study to the geographic region in which
the study was conducted. However, because the purpose
of this study was to specifically obtain more in-depth
information from this particular population, our inclusion criteria were fairly specific. Because the focus
groups were not conducted according to ethnic/racial/
language groups, it is not possible to discuss any cultural, language, or ethnic/racial differences. One
strength of this qualitative study is the large number of
participants, which increases the generalizability of the
findings, especially within Texas. Future studies should
be designed to allow for the examination of cultural and
ethnic/racial differences among the focus group participants. In addition, examining differences according to
access to transportation are needed as well.
Conclusions
Findings from this study suggest that solutions to the
issue of inadequate access to more healthful foods need
to be multifaceted and approached using a system-level
framework, especially because the economic and the
geographic constraints tend to be inextricably linked.
The first step is to ensure geographic access to retail
stores that provide more healthful, higher quality and,
most importantly, affordable food. Affordability of more
healthful foods can be addressed both by reducing their
price and through incentives such as Double Dollars/
Double Up Food Bucks. In addition to providing healthful foods, the retail store itself needs to be physically
attractive, clean and safe. In-store marketing of healthful
foods and health promotion and education can also
increase accessibility. Farmers’ markets and community
gardens can serve as less expensive complementary solutions and can serve to increase demand for more
locally-grown and fresh produce. A higher demand for
fresh produce can benefit local farmers, a traditionally
low-income population group, as well. In addition,
increased demand will possibly increase willingness of
larger retailers to place new stores in the community,
which ultimately can bring both economic and health
benefits to the community.
Page 10 of 12
Competing interests
The authors declare that they do not have competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
AE conceptualized the manuscript, conducted the analysis, and prepared the
first draft of the manuscript. KB, RJ, and EN participated in conceptualizing
the analyses, in examining the results of analysis, and in drafting the paper.
KB led the data collection and was assisted by RJ and AE. SS, AH, and AY all
provided critical review of multiple drafts. Collection of data and the
analytical / writing effort on this work were made possible by funding from
the Sustainable Food Center, as well as a grant from the Michael & Susan
Dell Foundation.
Acknowledgements
Funding for the study came from the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation and
the Sustainable Food Center. We would like to thank all participating
participants of the focus groups. Publication costs for this article were
funded by the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation through resources provided
at the Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of
Texas School of Public Health, Austin Regional Campus.
Declarations
This article has been published as part of International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity Volume 12 Supplement 1, 2015: The science of
childhood obesity: an individual to societal framework. The full contents of the
supplement are available online at http://www.ijbnpa.org/supplements/12/S1.
Publication costs for this supplement were funded by the Michael & Susan Dell
Foundation.
Authors’ details
1
Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas
School of Public Health Austin Regional Campus, Austin, TX, USA. 2Share Our
Strength Center for Best Practices, 1030 15th St NW, Ste 1100 West,
Washington, D.C. 20005, USA. 3Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, PO Box
163867, Austin, TX 78716, USA. 4Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition,
8401 West Dodge Road, Suite100 Omaha, NE 68114, USA.
Published: 27 July 2015
References
1. USDA ERS: Food Security in the U.S.: Key Statistics & Graphics., http://
www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/
key-statistics-graphics.aspx#foodsecure.
2. Rose D: Economic determinants and dietary consequences of food
insecurity in the United States. J Nutr 1999, 129(2S Suppl):517S-520S.
3. Walker JL, Holben DH, Kropf ML, Holcomb JP, Anderson H: Household food
insecurity is inversely associated with social capital and health in
females from special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children households in Appalachian Ohio. J Am Diet Assoc
2007, 107(11):1989-1993.
4. Grimm KA, Moore LV, Scanlon KS, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC): Access to healthier food retailers: United States, 2011.
MMWR Surveillance Summary 2013, 62(Suppl 3):20-26.
5. Beaulac J, Kristjansson E, Cummins S: A systematic review of food deserts,
1966-2007. Prev Chron Dis 2009, 6(3):A105.
6. Morland K, Wing S, Roux AD, Poole C: Neighborhood characteristics
associated with the location of food stores and food service places. Am
J Prev Med 2009, 22(1):23-29.
7. Morland K, Diez Roux AV, Wing S: Supermarkets, other food stores, and
obesity: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Am J Prev Med
2006, 30(4):333-339.
8. Morland KB, Evenson KR: Obesity prevalence and the local food
environment. Health & Place 2009, 15(2):491-495.
9. Powell L, Slater S, Mirtcheva D, Boa Y: Food store availability and neighborhood
characteristics in the United States. Prev Med 2007, 44(3):189-195.
10. Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC: Neighborhood environments: disparities
in access to healthy foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med 2009, 36(1):74-81.
11. Kumar S, Quinn SC, Kriska AM, Thomas SB: Food is directed to the area:
African Americans perceptions of the neighborhood nutrition
environment in Pittsburgh. Health & Place 2011, 17(1):370-378.
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
12. Inagami S, Cohen DA, Finch BK, Asch SM: You are where you shop:
Grocery store locations, weight, and neighborhoods. Am J Prev Med 2006,
31(1):10-17.
13. Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Israel BA, James SA, Bao S, Wilson ML: Fruit and
vegetable access differs by community racial composition and
socioeconomic position in Detroit, MI. Ethnic Dis 2006, 16(1):275-280.
14. Larson N, Story M: A review of environmental influences on food choices.
Ann Behav Med 2009, 38 Suppl 1:S56-S73.
15. Moore LV, Roux AVD, Nettleton JA, Jacobs DR: Associations of the local
food environment with diet quality comparison of assessments based
on surveys and geographic information systems: the multi-ethnic study
of atherosclerosis. Am J Epidemiol 2008, 167(8):917-924.
16. Ver Ploeg M, Breneman V, Farrigan T, Hamrick K, Hopkins D, Kaufman P,
et al: Access to affordable and nutritious food: measuring and
understanding food deserts and their consequences. Report to
Congress. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service; 2009.
17. White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity: Solving the problem of
childhood obesity within a generation. Report to the President.
Washington, D.C.; 2010.
18. Keener D, Goodman K, Lowry A, Zaro S, Khan LK: Recommended
community strategies and measurements to prevent obesity in the
United States: implementation and measurement guide. Atlanta: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; 2009.
19. Giang T, Karpyn A, Laurison HB, Hillier A, Perry RD: Closing the grocery gap
in underserved communities: the creation of the Pennsylvania Fresh
Food Financing Initiative. J Public Health Manag Pract 2008, 14(3):272-279.
20. Karpyn A, Manon M, Treuhaft S, Giang T, Harries C, McCoubrey K: Policy
solutions to the ‘grocery gap.’. Health Affairs 2010, 29(3):473-480.
21. Flournoy R: Healthy food, healthy communities: promising strategies to
improve access to fresh, healthy food and transform communities. New
York: Policy Link; 2010.
22. Whelan A, Wrigley N, Warm D, Cannings E: Life in a “Food Desert.”. Urban
Studies 2002, 39(11):2083-2100.
23. Wrigley N, Warm D, Margetts B, Lowe M: The Leeds “food deserts”
intervention study: what the focus groups reveal. Int J of Retail &
Distribution Mgmt 2004, 32(2):123-136.
24. Banks K: Central Texas Foodshed Assessment. Sustainable Food Center;
Austin, TX; 2011.
25. Krueger RA: Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications; 1998.
26. Evans A, Chow S, Jennings R, Dave J, Scoblick K, Sterba KR, Loyo J:
Traditional foods and practices of Spanish-speaking Latina mothers
influence the home food environment: implications for future
interventions. J Am Diet Assoc 2011, 111(7):1032-1038.
27. Center for Public Priorities: http://forabettertexas.org/data.html.
28. Shaikh AR, Yaroch SF, Nebeling LN: Psychosocial Predictors of Fruit and
Vegetable Consumption in Adults: A Review of the Literature. Am J Prev
Med 2008, 34(6):535-543.
29. Zachary DA, Palmer AM, Beckham SW, Surkan PJ: A Framework for
Understanding Grocery Purchasing in a Low-Income Urban
Environment. Qualitative Health Research 2013, 23(5):665-678.
30. Lindsay AC, Sussner KM, Greaney ML, Peterson KE: Influence of social
context on eating, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors of Latina
mothers and their preschool-age children. Health Ed Behav 2008,
36(1):81-96.
31. Tsang S, Holt AM, Azevedo E: An assessment of the barriers to accessing
food among food-insecure people in Cobourg, Ontario. Chronic Dis Inj
Can 2011, 31(3):121-128.
32. French SA, Story M, Jeffery RW: Environmental influences on eating and
physical activity. Annnu Rev Publ Health 2001, 22:309-335.
33. Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Hollis-Neely T, Campbell RT, Holmes N, Watkins G, et al:
Fruit and vegetable intake in African Americans: income and store
characteristics. Am J Prev Med 2005, 29(1):1-9.
34. Wiig K, Smith C: The art of grocery shopping on a food stamp budget:
factors influencing the food choices of low-income women as they try
to make ends meet. Public Health Nutrition 2009, 12(10):1726-34.
35. Glanz K, Basil M, Maibach E, Goldberg J, Snyder D: Why Americans eat
what they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control
concerns as influences on food consumption. J Am Diet Assoc 1998,
98(10):1118-1126.
Page 11 of 12
36. Furst T, Connors M, Bisogni CA, Sobal J, Falk LW: Food choice: a
conceptual model of the process. Appetite 1996, 26(3):247-266.
37. Wrigley N, Warm D, Margetts B: Deprivation, diet, and food-retail access:
findings from the Leeds Food Deserts’ Study. Environment and Planning A
2003, 35(1):151-188.
38. Sadler RC, Gilliland JA, Arku G: A food retail-based intervention on food
security and consumption. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013,
10(8):3325-3346.
39. Wang MC, MacLeod KE, Steadman C, Williams L, Bowie SL, Herd D,
Luluquisen M, Woo M: Is the opening of a neighborhood full-service
grocery store followed by a change in the food behavior of residents?
J Hunger Environ Nutr 2007, 2(1):3-18.
40. Cummins S, Petticrew M, Higgins C, Findlay A, Sparks L: Large scale food
retailing as an intervention for diet and health: quasi-experimental
evaluation of a natural experiment. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005,
59(12):1035-1040.
41. Wrigley N, Warm DL, Margetts BM: Deprivation, diet, and food retail
access: findings from the Leeds “food deserts’ study”. Environment and
Planning A 2003, 35:151-88.
42. Volpe R, Okrent A: Assessing The Healthfulness Of Consumers’ Grocery
Purchases. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service; 2013.
43. Escaron AL, Meinen AM, Nitzke SA, Martinez-Donate A: Supermarket and
grocery store based interventions to promote healthful food choices
and eating practices: a systematic review. Prev Chron Dis 10:1.
44. Waterlander WE, de Boer MR, Schuit AJ, Seidell JC, Steenhuis IH: Price
discounts significantly enhance fruit and vegetable purchases when
combined with nutrition education: a randomized controlled
supermarket trial. American J Clin Nutr 2013, 97(4):886-895.
45. Nghiem N, Wilson N, Gen M, Blakely T: Understanding price elasticities to
inform public health research and intervention studies: Key issues. Am J
of Public Health 2013, 103(11):1954-61.
46. Ver Ploeg M: Access To Affordable And Nutritious Food: Measuring And
Understanding Food Deserts And Their Consequences: Report to
Congress. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service; 2009.
47. Gittelsohn J, Kim EM, He S, Pardilla M: A food store based environmental
intervention is associated with reduced BMI and improved psychosocial
factors and food-related behaviors on the Navajo Nation. J Nutr 2013,
143(9):1494-1500.
48. Dannefer R, Williams DA, Baronberg S, Silver L: Healthy bodegas:
increasing and promoting healthy foods at corner stores in New York
City. Am J Public Health 2012, 102(10):e27-e31.
49. Gittelsohn J, Rowan M, Gadhoke P: Interventions in small food stores to
change the food environment, improve diet, and reduce risk of chronic
disease. Prev Chron Dis 2012, 9:E59.
50. Bodor JN, Rose D, Farley TA, Swalm C, Scott SK: Neighbourhood fruit and
vegetable availability and consumption: the role of small food stores in
an urban environment. Pub Health Nutr 2008, 11(4):413-420.
51. Clifton K: Mobility strategies and food shopping for low income families:
A case study. J of Planning Education and Research 2004, 23(4):402-413.
52. Evans AE, Jennings R, Smiley AW, Medina JL, Sharma SV, Rutledge R, et al:
Introduction of farm stands in low-income communities increases fruit
and vegetable consumption among community residents. Health & Place
2012, 18(5):1137-1143.
53. McCormack LA, Laska MN, Larson NI, Story M: Review of the nutritional
implications of farmers’ markets and community gardens: a call for
evaluation and research efforts. J Am Diet Assoc 2010, 110(3):399-408.
54. Freedman DA, Choi SK, Hurley T, Anadu E, Hebert JR: A farmers market at
a federally qualified health center improves fruit and vegetable intake
among low-income diabetics. Prev Med 2013, 56(5):288-292.
55. Fair Food Network: Double Up Food Buck: 2012 Evaluation Report.,
http://www.fairfoodnetwork.org/sites/default/files/
FFN_DUFB_Evaluation_2012_sm.pdf.
56. Carney PA, Hamada JL, Rdesinski R, Sprager L, Nichols KR, Liu BY, et al:
Impact of a Community Gardening Project on Vegetable Intake, Food
Security and Family Relationships: A Community-based Participatory
Research Study. J Community Health 2012, 37(4):874-881.
57. Cawley J: The economics of childhood obesity. Health Aff 2010,
29(3):364-371.
Evans et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 2015, 12(Suppl 1):S5
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/S1/S5
Page 12 of 12
58. Morrissey T, Jacknowitz A, Vinopal K: Local food prices and their
associations with children’s weight and food security. Pediatrics
133(3):422-430.
59. Kempson K, Keenan DP, Sadani PS, Adler A: Maintaining food sufficiency:
coping strategies identified by limited-resource individuals versus
nutrition educators. J Nutr Educ Behav 2003, 35(4):179-188.
doi:10.1186/1479-5868-12-S1-S5
Cite this article as: Evans et al.: Increasing access to healthful foods: a
qualitative study with residents of low-income communities.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2015
12(Suppl 1):S5.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
This week, you will submit the annotation of a qualitative research article on a topic of
your interest
8
•
Annotate one qualitative research article from a peer-reviewed journal on a topic of your
interest.
•
Provide the reference list entry for this article in APA Style followed by a threeparagraph annotation that includes:
o
A summary
o
An analysis
o
An application as illustrated in this example
•
Format your annotation in Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced. A separate
References list page is not needed for this assignment.
•
•
Submit your annotation.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment