Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:38:34.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Availability, quality and price of produce in low-income neighbourhood food stores in California raise equity issues - CORRIGENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2018

Wendi Gosliner
Affiliation:
Nutrition Policy Institute, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2115 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
Daniel M Brown
Affiliation:
Contra Costa Health Services, Martinez, CA, USA
Betty C Sun
Affiliation:
Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy – Institute at the Golden Gate, San Francisco, CA, USA
Gail Woodward-Lopez
Affiliation:
Nutrition Policy Institute, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2115 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
Patricia B Crawford
Affiliation:
Nutrition Policy Institute, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2115 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Corrigendum
Copyright
© The Authors 2018 

Original text and correction:

ORIGINAL TEXT (page 1644, Results)

Table 3 Average lowest price per pound and relative price difference of seven produce items by store type for stores in the CX3 sample. Relative price differences are the difference between the observed lowest store price and the average lowest price for chain supermarkets in the same county that month, expressed as a percentage of the average county chain supermarket lowest price

* The test significance column indicates the significance (at p<.05) of two-way tests of the hypothesis that the relative price differences differ between store type categories. The letter A indicates that ‘Large Groceries’ and ‘Small Markets’ stores have different relative price differences, B that ‘Large Groceries’ and ‘Convenience’ stores differ, and C that ‘Small Markets’ and ‘Convenience’ stores differ.

CORRECTION

The last line of Table 3, representing a composite analysis of five produce items, was omitted in the published version and is included in this corrigendum.

Table 3 Average lowest price per pound and relative price difference of seven produce items by store type for stores in the CX3 sample. Relative price differences are the difference between the observed lowest store price and the average lowest price for chain supermarkets in the same county that month, expressed as a percentage of the average county chain supermarket lowest price

* The test significance column indicates the significance (at p<.05) of two-way tests of the hypothesis that the relative price differences differ between store type categories. The letter A indicates that ‘Large Groceries’ and ‘Small Markets’ stores have different relative price differences, B that ‘Large Groceries’ and ‘Convenience’ stores differ, and C that ‘Small Markets’ and ‘Convenience’ stores differ.

References

Gosliner, W., Brown, D., Sun, B., Woodward-Lopez, G., & Crawford, P. (2018). Availability, quality and price of produce in low-income neighbourhood food stores in California raise equity issues. Public Health Nutrition, 21(9), 16391648. doi:10.1017/S1368980018000058 Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 3 Average lowest price per pound and relative price difference of seven produce items by store type for stores in the CX3 sample. Relative price differences are the difference between the observed lowest store price and the average lowest price for chain supermarkets in the same county that month, expressed as a percentage of the average county chain supermarket lowest price

Figure 1

Table 3 Average lowest price per pound and relative price difference of seven produce items by store type for stores in the CX3 sample. Relative price differences are the difference between the observed lowest store price and the average lowest price for chain supermarkets in the same county that month, expressed as a percentage of the average county chain supermarket lowest price