B’more Healthy Corner Stores for Moms and Kids: Identifying Optimal Behavioral Economic Strategies to Increase WIC Redemptions in Small Urban Corner Stores

Abstract

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) redemption rates have been declining in many low-income urban settings, potentially related to aspects of the food environment. B’more Healthy Corner Stores for Moms and Kids was a feasibility trial in Baltimore City that aimed to test multiple behavioral economic (BE) strategies in 10 corner stores (intervention = eight stores, comparison = two stores), to evaluate their influence on the stocking and redemptions of WIC foods. Tested strategies included in-person storeowner training, point of purchase promotion, product placement, and grouping of products in a display. All four strategies were feasible and implemented with high reach, dose delivered, and fidelity. Additionally, text messaging was found to be an acceptable form of intervention reinforcement for storeowners. Analyses to assess change in stocking of WIC foods, total sales of WIC foods, and sales of WIC foods to WIC clients, revealed consistent positive changes after implementation of the store owner training strategy, while changes after the implementation of other strategies were mixed. Furthermore, WIC food sales to WIC clients significantly increased after the simultaneous implementation of two strategies, compared to one (p > 0.05). Results suggest that store owner training was the most influential strategy and that the implementation of more BE strategies does not necessarily lead to proportional increases in stocking and sales. Selected BE strategies appear to be an effective way of increasing stocking and sales of WIC foods in small urban food stores.

Improving Consumption and Purchases of Healthier Foods in Retail Environments: A Systematic Review

“…Out of the 34 multi-component interventions, 13 interventions included two Ps [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], 20 interventions included three Ps [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 ], and one intervention included all four Ps [ 79 ]. All of the multi-component interventions included promotion.…”

“…All of the multi-component interventions included promotion. Overall, 8 had positive effects [ 57 , 58 , 65 , 66 , 71 , 73 , 75 , 76 ], 2 studies had mixed effects (positive + negative) [ 68 , 78 ], 13 had mixed effects (positive + null) [ 46 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 56 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 72 ], 4 had mixed effects, (positive + null + negative) [ 50 , 55 , 63 , 77 ], and 7 had null effects [ 48 , 54 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 74 , 79 ] (see Table 3 ).…”

“…Fifteen studies implemented interventions with promotion, product, and placement strategies [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 71 , 73 , 74 , 76 , 77 , 78 ]. Out of the 15, 2 had mixed effects (positive + negative) [ 68 , 78 ], 4 had mixed effects (positive + null) [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ], 2 had mixed effects (positive + negative + null) [ 63 , 77 ], 3 had null effects [ 67 , 69 , 74 ], and 4 had positive effects [ 65 , 71 , 73 , 76 ].…”

“…Five studies were experimental [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ]. The interventions included adding point-of-purchase promotions, changing the store structure and environment (e.g., adding a buffet bar or refrigerator, grouping products in a display), and altering the in-store location of products (e.g., multiple facings, prime placement, secondary placement, checkout aisle end-caps), and increased stocking of healthier products [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ]. All five studies found mixed effects for improving the purchasing and consumption of healthy food.…”

A systematic review of the influences of food store product placement on dietary-related outcomes

“…In accordance with this review’s inclusion criteria, all interventions were conducted in physical food retail stores; 13 articles (n = 13/22; 59%) reported interventions taking place in supermarkets, 27 , 30 , 32 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 45–49 8 (n = 8/22; 36%) in convenience stores, 31 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 and 1 (n = 1/22; 5%) in both supermarkets and convenience stores. 36 Overall, the 22 intervention studies involved 243 intervention stores and 43 control stores.…”