↓ Skip to main content

Bringing Healthy Retail to Urban “Food Swamps”: a Case Study of CBPR-Informed Policy and Neighborhood Change in San Francisco

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Urban Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
Title
Bringing Healthy Retail to Urban “Food Swamps”: a Case Study of CBPR-Informed Policy and Neighborhood Change in San Francisco
Published in
Journal of Urban Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11524-018-0234-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meredith Minkler, Jessica Estrada, Ryan Thayer, Lisa Juachon, Patricia Wakimoto, Jennifer Falbe

Abstract

In urban "food swamps" like San Francisco's Tenderloin, the absence of full-service grocery stores and plethora of corner stores saturated with tobacco, alcohol, and processed food contribute to high rates of chronic disease. We explore the genesis of the Tenderloin Healthy Corner Store Coalition, its relationship with health department and academic partners, and its contributions to the passage and implementation of a healthy retail ordinance through community-based participatory research (CBPR), capacity building, and advocacy. The healthy retail ordinance incentivizes small stores to increase space for healthy foods and decrease tobacco and alcohol availability. Through Yin's multi-method case study analysis, we examined the partnership's processes and contributions to the ordinance within the framework of Kingdon's three-stage policymaking model. We also assessed preliminary outcomes of the ordinance, including a 35% increase in produce sales and moderate declines in tobacco sales in the first four stores participating in the Tenderloin, as well as a "ripple effect," through which non-participating stores also improved their retail environments. Despite challenges, CBPR partnerships led by a strong community coalition concerned with bedrock issues like food justice and neighborhood inequities in tobacco exposure may represent an important avenue for health equity-focused research and its translation into practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 34 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 21 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 38 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#16,597,003
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Urban Health
#1,161
of 1,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,250
of 333,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Urban Health
#28
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.