We have located links that may give you full text access.
A Cash-back Rebate Program for Healthy Food Purchases in South Africa: Selection and Program Effects in Self-reported Diet Patterns.
American Journal of Health Behavior 2017 March 2
OBJECTIVES: A South African insurer launched a rebate program for healthy food purchases for its members, but only available in program-designated supermarkets. To eliminate selection bias in program enrollment, we estimated the impact of subsidies in nudging the population towards a healthier diet using an instrumental variable approach.
METHODS: Data came from a health behavior questionnaire administered among members in the health promotion program. Individual and supermarket addresses were geocoded and differential distances from home to program-designated supermarkets versus competing supermarkets were calculated. Bivariate probit and linear instrumental variable models were performed to control for likely unobserved selection biases, employing differential distances as a predictor of program enrollment.
RESULTS: For regular fast-food, processed meat, and salty food consumption, approximately two-thirds of the difference between participants and nonparticipants was attributable to the intervention and one-third to selection effects. For fruit/ vegetable and fried food consumption, merely one-eighth of the difference was selection. The rebate reduced regular consumption of fast food by 15% and foods high in salt/sugar and fried foods by 22%- 26%, and increased fruit/vegetable consumption by 21% (0.66 serving/day).
CONCLUSIONS: Large population interventions are an essential complement to laboratory experiments, but selection biases require explicit attention in evaluation studies conducted in naturalistic settings.
METHODS: Data came from a health behavior questionnaire administered among members in the health promotion program. Individual and supermarket addresses were geocoded and differential distances from home to program-designated supermarkets versus competing supermarkets were calculated. Bivariate probit and linear instrumental variable models were performed to control for likely unobserved selection biases, employing differential distances as a predictor of program enrollment.
RESULTS: For regular fast-food, processed meat, and salty food consumption, approximately two-thirds of the difference between participants and nonparticipants was attributable to the intervention and one-third to selection effects. For fruit/ vegetable and fried food consumption, merely one-eighth of the difference was selection. The rebate reduced regular consumption of fast food by 15% and foods high in salt/sugar and fried foods by 22%- 26%, and increased fruit/vegetable consumption by 21% (0.66 serving/day).
CONCLUSIONS: Large population interventions are an essential complement to laboratory experiments, but selection biases require explicit attention in evaluation studies conducted in naturalistic settings.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app