食品获取问题：量化四大食品零售商之间的价格差异和旨在改善可负担的营养食品获取的移动市场。

IF 2.3 3区医学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jneb.2025.05.196

Shivani Muthya BSN , Melissa N. Laska PhD, RD , Jayne A. Fulkerson PhD , Stephanie Wagner BS , Kristen S. Gorman PhD , Lisa Harnack DrPH, RD, MPH , Melissa L. Horning PhD, RN, BSN, PHN

{"title":"食品获取问题：量化四大食品零售商之间的价格差异和旨在改善可负担的营养食品获取的移动市场。","authors":"Shivani Muthya BSN , Melissa N. Laska PhD, RD , Jayne A. Fulkerson PhD , Stephanie Wagner BS , Kristen S. Gorman PhD , Lisa Harnack DrPH, RD, MPH , Melissa L. Horning PhD, RN, BSN, PHN","doi":"10.1016/j.jneb.2025.05.196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To understand how food prices differed between physical and online grocery stores and a well-established mobile market in a Midwest metropolitan area of the US.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Four major grocery retailers nearest to 8 subsidized apartments were identified. Two stores from each retailer were randomly selected (n = 8), and prices for 67 size-standardized foods were collected in person and online. An analysis of variance test assessed mean differences in cart prices across stores relative to the Twin Cities Mobile Market (TCMM).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Relative to TCMM cart prices, cart prices were significantly higher at physical and online Walmart (21% to 22% higher, <em>P</em> < 0.001), Target (29% to 30%, <em>P</em> < 0.001), and Cub Foods (62% to 63%, <em>P</em> < 0.001) stores and online Aldi stores (14%, <em>P</em> = 0.02). Aldi physical store prices were not statistically significantly different (<em>P</em> = 0.72).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><div>Results require cautious interpretation given the low number of observations per retailer; however, findings suggest TCMM provides foods at a lower cost than most nearby grocery stores, providing 1 example of full-service mobile market pricing. Future research is needed to assess mobile market pricing structures in other locations across the US.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50107,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior","volume":"57 9","pages":"Pages 885-891"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Food Access Matters: Quantifying the Price Differential Across Four Major Food Retailers and a Mobile Market Aiming to Improve Affordable Nutritious Food Access\",\"authors\":\"Shivani Muthya BSN , Melissa N. Laska PhD, RD , Jayne A. Fulkerson PhD , Stephanie Wagner BS , Kristen S. Gorman PhD , Lisa Harnack DrPH, RD, MPH , Melissa L. Horning PhD, RN, BSN, PHN\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jneb.2025.05.196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To understand how food prices differed between physical and online grocery stores and a well-established mobile market in a Midwest metropolitan area of the US.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Four major grocery retailers nearest to 8 subsidized apartments were identified. Two stores from each retailer were randomly selected (n = 8), and prices for 67 size-standardized foods were collected in person and online. An analysis of variance test assessed mean differences in cart prices across stores relative to the Twin Cities Mobile Market (TCMM).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Relative to TCMM cart prices, cart prices were significantly higher at physical and online Walmart (21% to 22% higher, <em>P</em> < 0.001), Target (29% to 30%, <em>P</em> < 0.001), and Cub Foods (62% to 63%, <em>P</em> < 0.001) stores and online Aldi stores (14%, <em>P</em> = 0.02). Aldi physical store prices were not statistically significantly different (<em>P</em> = 0.72).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><div>Results require cautious interpretation given the low number of observations per retailer; however, findings suggest TCMM provides foods at a lower cost than most nearby grocery stores, providing 1 example of full-service mobile market pricing. Future research is needed to assess mobile market pricing structures in other locations across the US.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior\",\"volume\":\"57 9\",\"pages\":\"Pages 885-891\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404625003124\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404625003124","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的：了解美国中西部大都市地区的实体和在线杂货店以及成熟的移动市场之间的食品价格差异。方法：选取距离8套补贴公寓最近的4家主要杂货零售商。每个零售商随机选择两家商店（n = 8），并亲自和在线收集67种尺寸标准化食品的价格。方差检验分析评估了相对于双城移动市场（TCMM）的商店手推车价格的平均差异。结果：相对于TCMM购物车价格，实体店和在线沃尔玛（21%至22%，P < 0.001）、塔吉特（29%至30%，P < 0.001）和Cub Foods（62%至63%，P < 0.001）商店和在线Aldi商店（14%,P = 0.02）的购物车价格明显更高。Aldi实体店价格差异无统计学意义（P = 0.72）。结论和含义：考虑到每个零售商的观察数量很少，结果需要谨慎解释；然而，调查结果表明，TCMM提供的食物比附近大多数杂货店的成本更低，这是全方位服务移动市场定价的一个例子。未来的研究需要评估美国其他地区的移动市场定价结构。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Food Access Matters: Quantifying the Price Differential Across Four Major Food Retailers and a Mobile Market Aiming to Improve Affordable Nutritious Food Access

Objective

To understand how food prices differed between physical and online grocery stores and a well-established mobile market in a Midwest metropolitan area of the US.

Methods

Four major grocery retailers nearest to 8 subsidized apartments were identified. Two stores from each retailer were randomly selected (n = 8), and prices for 67 size-standardized foods were collected in person and online. An analysis of variance test assessed mean differences in cart prices across stores relative to the Twin Cities Mobile Market (TCMM).

Results

Relative to TCMM cart prices, cart prices were significantly higher at physical and online Walmart (21% to 22% higher, P < 0.001), Target (29% to 30%, P < 0.001), and Cub Foods (62% to 63%, P < 0.001) stores and online Aldi stores (14%, P = 0.02). Aldi physical store prices were not statistically significantly different (P = 0.72).

Conclusions and Implications

Results require cautious interpretation given the low number of observations per retailer; however, findings suggest TCMM provides foods at a lower cost than most nearby grocery stores, providing 1 example of full-service mobile market pricing. Future research is needed to assess mobile market pricing structures in other locations across the US.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 医学-学科教育

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

11.50%

发文量

379

审稿时长

44 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior (JNEB), the official journal of the Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior, is a refereed, scientific periodical that serves as a global resource for all professionals with an interest in nutrition education; nutrition and physical activity behavior theories and intervention outcomes; complementary and alternative medicine related to nutrition behaviors; food environment; food, nutrition, and physical activity communication strategies including technology; nutrition-related economics; food safety education; and scholarship of learning related to these areas. The purpose of JNEB is to document and disseminate original research and emerging issues and practices relevant to these areas worldwide. The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior welcomes evidence-based manuscripts that provide new insights and useful findings related to nutrition education research, practice and policy. The content areas of JNEB reflect the diverse interests in nutrition and physical activity related to public health, nutritional sciences, education, behavioral economics, family and consumer sciences, and eHealth, including the interests of community-based nutrition-practitioners. As the Society''s official journal, JNEB also includes policy statements, issue perspectives, position papers, and member communications.