Table 4.

Impacts of and storeowner satisfaction of participating in the North Carolina Healthy Food Small Retailer Program

Measure	Mean	SD	Range
Level of difficulty or satisfaction*
Services provided by NCDA&CS†	1·25	0·43	1–2
Services provided by other local professionals†	1·25	0·43	1–2
Marketing efforts by NCDA&CS†	1·75	0·83	1–3
Equipment for the healthy food items†	2·25	1·09	1–4
Difficulty in stocking healthier items†	2·50	1·12	1–4
Impact of HFSRP participation on business*
Agree resulted in an increase in overall sales‡	4·0
Agree sell more nutrient-dense foods‡	5·0
Impact on customers*
Interested in learning more about healthy eating‡	4·5
Satisfied with the new healthier options‡	5·0
Programme impact and effectiveness§
Healthy food supply score – annual change||	2·31	1·84	0·75–5·25
Healthy food supply score – investment effectiveness¶	0·12	0·11	0·03–0·31
Healthy eating index – annual change||	2·51	5·50	−2·77–10·09
Healthy eating index – investment effectiveness¶	0·10	0·22	−0·11–0·41

NCDA&CS, North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services; HFSRP, Healthy Food Small Retailer Program; HFS, Healthy Food Supply; HEI, Healthy Eating Index.

^*These responses are drawn from all (five) respondents who completed the HFSRP Evaluation.

^†Level of satisfaction and difficulty are measured using a five-point Likert scales; lower values indicate higher levels of satisfaction (very satisfied =1), lower level of difficulty (very easy =1).

^‡Responses are scored as: Yes (1), Somewhat (0·5), No (0).

^§Data from the following stores were used in calculating the index scores: Healthy Food Supply Scores – S1, S3, S5, S6; Healthy Eating Index – S1, S2, S4, S5, S6.

^||Annual change reflects the change in scores from a baseline period to 1 year after starting HFSRP participation.

^¶Investment Effectiveness is estimated as the change in HFS Score (or HEI) per US$1000 HFSRP investment. The amount of grant funds awarded to one store (S2) are not available.