Table 2.
Association between overall healthy food availability and promotions and Healthy Eating Index (HEI-2010) of purchasesa
| HEI-2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1b | Model 2c | Model 3d | ||||
| LS means (HEI-2010) | p | LS means (HEI-2010) | p | LS means (HEI-2010) | p | |
| Healthy impulse buys | .43 | .45 | .51 | |||
| Yes | 31.3 | 31.4 | 31.4 | |||
| No | 30.3 | 30.4 | 30.6 | |||
| Healthy advertisements: exterior | .04 | .03 | .20 | |||
| Yes | 29.5 | 29.4 | 30.0 | |||
| No | 32.0 | 32.2 | 31.8 | |||
| Healthy advertisements: interior | .90 | .67 | .79 | |||
| Yes | 30.8 | 30.6 | 31.4 | |||
| No | 31.0 | 31.2 | 31.0 | |||
| Shelf space: Fresh fruits/vegetables (in feet) | .0004 | .0006 | .002 | |||
| None | 29.9 | 29.7 | 28.8 | |||
| Low (1–5) | 28.5 | 28.8 | 30.8 | |||
| Higher (>5) | 34.3 | 34.3 | 35.2 | |||
| Shelf space ratio: Fruits/vegetables to unhealthy | <.0001 | <.0001 | .0002 | |||
| None | 29.8 | 29.5 | 28.8 | |||
| Low (.002–014) | 28.4 | 28.5 | 30.2 | |||
| Higher (>.014) | 35.0 | 35.1 | 35.9 | |||
| Healthy Food Supply Score (HFSS)e | (β = 0.3; se = 0.1) | .02 | (β = 0.3; se = 0.1) | .03 | (β = 0.2; se = 0.2) | 0.2 |
| 8 | 29.8 | 29.7 | 29.5 | |||
| 9.5 | 30.1 | 30.1 | 30.2 | |||
| 11.5 | 31.0 | 30.8 | 30.7 | |||
aData collected in Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN in 2014
bunadjusted
cadjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education
dadjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education and store type
eHFSS modeled as continuous measure (β = regression coefficient; se = standard error); predicted means of HEI (range 0–100) are shown for the Q1 (8), median (9.5), and Q3 (11.5) values of HFSS (range 1–31) only for interpretability purposes