This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

28/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Health concerns seem to influence consumers’ decisions for purchasing local foods. Maples et al. (2013), Onozaka, Nurse, and Thilmany McFadden (2010), and Wolf, Apitler, and Ahern (2005) found that health motivation can be a significant driver of local foods purchase, yet it remains unclear what specific health aspects determine consumer purchase decisions. For example, consumers with a delicate health history might be trying to fend off disease. In this study, we explore the effects of specific health variables (family illness incidences focusing six particular diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity, back/joint pain, Alzheimer/dementia and cancer,) on buying behavior of local foods. We examine the decisions of whether to visit farmer’s markets, visit farm stands, and participate in community supported agriculture (CSA) using a binary probit model. Results indicate that cancer and obesity are statistically significant to purchase local foods. Other important factors include greater physical activity level, following special diet and availability of farmers’ markets. Findings might help local food sellers in the Southeastern United States gain a deeper understanding of how consumers’ health background and health concerns affect their choice of local food outlets.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Low

This study examined how health concerns, including family history of Alzheimer's or dementia, affect consumers' decisions to buy local foods. It is about food purchasing behavior and does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Thapaliya, S., Interis, M. G., Collart, A. J., Walters, L. M., Morgan, K. L., Thapaliya, et al. (2014). Health Motivation for Purchasing Local Foods in the Southeastern United States. 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.196803

Vancouver

Thapaliya S, Interis MG, Collart AJ, Walters LM, Morgan KL, Thapaliya, et al. Health Motivation for Purchasing Local Foods in the Southeastern United States. 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia. 2014. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.196803.

BibTeX

@article{thapaliya2014-b4ca29b0,
  author  = {Thapaliya, Sudha and Interis, Matthew G. and Collart, Alba J. and Walters, Lurleen M. and Morgan, Kimberly L. and Thapaliya and Sudha and Interis and others},
  title   = {{Health Motivation for Purchasing Local Foods in the Southeastern United States}},
  journal = {2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.22004/ag.econ.196803},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.196803}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

(2013), Onozaka, Nurse, and Thilmany McFadden (2010), and Wolf, Apitler, and Ahern (2005) found that health motivation can be a significant driver of local foods purchase, yet it remains unclear what specific health aspects determine consumer purchase decisions.
Results indicate that cancer and obesity are statistically significant to purchase local foods.

Why it matters

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 28/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, impact for its field and year, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 83 points we could judge it on, which is 28 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia)
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	1 / 5	2014 — within 20 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.1 citations a year over 14 year(s) since 2014
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
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	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter 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	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	23 / 83	Scored on 16 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 83 points we could judge it on is 28 out of 100.
Total	28 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Risk factors from nearby years

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.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →