Home › Research › Risk factors
Food Priorities: Sociodemographic Variation in Constrained Choices at the Grocery Store
Christy Freadreacea Brady. Food Systems and Health, 2017-07-13
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Abstract Purpose Using a Constrained Choice Theory framework, this paper will identify variation in choosing the constraint-reflective priorities of budget, taste, or health by sociodemographic group, familial status, and weight category. Identifying which groups experience unique constraints will allow for customized healthy eating programs to address barriers specific to each group. Methodology/approach Data are derived from a paper survey of families with children in Lexington, KY and analyzed using logistic regression. Findings The results of this study confirm that some sociodemographic groups are more likely to choose priorities that reflect contextual constraints in their lives than others. In particular, having a higher income reduces likelihood of prioritizing budget and increases chances of prioritizing taste. Being married or cohabitating is correlated with choosing health, but having more children reduces the likelihood of prioritizing health. Being obese correlates with increased likelihood of prioritizing budget. Membership in each of these categories reflects constraints on which foods are purchased for the home. Social implications Families are encouraged to improve their diets by eating at home, but families face many constraints when choosing healthy foods at the grocery store. Understanding the constraints experienced by various groups when shopping for food will lead to health policy that more fully addresses barriers to healthy eating for groups with disproportionately high incidence of diet-related disease. Originality/value This paper extends Constrained Choice Theory by applying it to a new aspect of health, purchasing groceries, and also by examining a wider variety of sociodemographic groups than previous research.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Brady, C. F. (2017). Food Priorities: Sociodemographic Variation in Constrained Choices at the Grocery Store. Food Systems and Health. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1057-629020170000018004
Vancouver
Brady CF. Food Priorities: Sociodemographic Variation in Constrained Choices at the Grocery Store. Food Systems and Health. 2017. doi:10.1108/s1057-629020170000018004.
BibTeX
@article{brady2017-00adaa80,
author = {Brady, Christy Freadreacea},
title = {{Food Priorities: Sociodemographic Variation in Constrained Choices at the Grocery Store}},
journal = {Food Systems and Health},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1108/s1057-629020170000018004},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1108/s1057-629020170000018004}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Findings The results of this study confirm that some sociodemographic groups are more likely to choose priorities that reflect contextual constraints in their lives than others.
- Being obese correlates with increased likelihood of prioritizing budget.
Why it matters
This survey of families in Lexington, KY found that different sociodemographic groups prioritize budget, taste, or health differently when grocery shopping. It has no relevance to treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 24/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 89 points we could judge it on, which is 24 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Food Systems and Health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 11 year(s) since 2017 |
| Impact for its field and year | 0 / 6 | Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Christy Freadreacea Brady holds only 7 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 0 institution(s) in 0 countries — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 89 | Scored on 17 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 89 points we could judge it on is 24 out of 100. |
| Total | 24 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also in Risk factors
356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.