Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Field validity and spatial accuracy of Food Sta...

Research

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Field validity and spatial accuracy of Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating scheme data for England

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Field validity and spatial accuracy of Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating scheme data for England. / Kirkman, Scott; Hollingsworth, Bruce; Lake, Amelia et al.
In: Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom), Vol. 43, No. 4, 31.12.2021, p. E720-E727.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Kirkman, S, Hollingsworth, B, Lake, A, Hinke, S, Sorrell, S, Burgoine, T & Brown, H 2021, 'Field validity and spatial accuracy of Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating scheme data for England', Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom), vol. 43, no. 4, pp. E720-E727. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa172

APA

Kirkman, S., Hollingsworth, B., Lake, A., Hinke, S., Sorrell, S., Burgoine, T., & Brown, H. (2021). Field validity and spatial accuracy of Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating scheme data for England. Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom), 43(4), E720-E727. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa172

Vancouver

Kirkman S, Hollingsworth B, Lake A, Hinke S, Sorrell S, Burgoine T et al. Field validity and spatial accuracy of Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating scheme data for England. Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom). 2021 Dec 31;43(4):E720-E727. Epub 2020 Sept 24. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdaa172

Author

Kirkman, Scott ; Hollingsworth, Bruce ; Lake, Amelia et al. / Field validity and spatial accuracy of Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating scheme data for England. In: Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom). 2021 ; Vol. 43, No. 4. pp. E720-E727.

Bibtex

@article{7047ff8df27744abbc98bd85cb396b43,
title = "Field validity and spatial accuracy of Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating scheme data for England",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The study aimed to evaluate the validity and spatial accuracy of the Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating online data through a field audit.METHODS: A field audit was conducted in five Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the North East of England. LSOAs were purposively selected from the top and bottom quintiles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation and from urban and rural areas. The FHRS data validity against the field data was measured as Positive Predictive Values (PPV) and sensitivity. Spatial accuracy was evaluated via mean difference in straight line distances between the FHRS coordinates and the field coordinates.RESULTS: In all, 182 premises were present in the field, of which 162 were in the FHRS data giving a sensitivity of 89%. Eight outlets recorded in the FHRS data were absent in the field, giving a PPV of 95%.The mean difference in the geographical coordinates of the field audit compared to the FHRS was 110 m, and <100 m for 77% of outlets.CONCLUSIONS: After an evaluation of the validity and spatial accuracy of the FHRS data, the results suggest that it is a useful dataset for surveillance of the food environment and for intervention evaluation.",
keywords = "Field validity, Food environment, Foodscape, Spatial accuracy",
author = "Scott Kirkman and Bruce Hollingsworth and Amelia Lake and Stephanie Hinke and Stewart Sorrell and Thomas Burgoine and Heather Brown",
year = "2021",
month = dec,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1093/pubmed/fdaa172",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "E720--E727",
journal = "Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom)",
issn = "1741-3842",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Field validity and spatial accuracy of Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating scheme data for England

AU - Kirkman, Scott

AU - Hollingsworth, Bruce

AU - Lake, Amelia

AU - Hinke, Stephanie

AU - Sorrell, Stewart

AU - Burgoine, Thomas

AU - Brown, Heather

PY - 2021/12/31

Y1 - 2021/12/31

N2 - BACKGROUND: The study aimed to evaluate the validity and spatial accuracy of the Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating online data through a field audit.METHODS: A field audit was conducted in five Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the North East of England. LSOAs were purposively selected from the top and bottom quintiles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation and from urban and rural areas. The FHRS data validity against the field data was measured as Positive Predictive Values (PPV) and sensitivity. Spatial accuracy was evaluated via mean difference in straight line distances between the FHRS coordinates and the field coordinates.RESULTS: In all, 182 premises were present in the field, of which 162 were in the FHRS data giving a sensitivity of 89%. Eight outlets recorded in the FHRS data were absent in the field, giving a PPV of 95%.The mean difference in the geographical coordinates of the field audit compared to the FHRS was 110 m, and <100 m for 77% of outlets.CONCLUSIONS: After an evaluation of the validity and spatial accuracy of the FHRS data, the results suggest that it is a useful dataset for surveillance of the food environment and for intervention evaluation.

AB - BACKGROUND: The study aimed to evaluate the validity and spatial accuracy of the Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating online data through a field audit.METHODS: A field audit was conducted in five Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the North East of England. LSOAs were purposively selected from the top and bottom quintiles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation and from urban and rural areas. The FHRS data validity against the field data was measured as Positive Predictive Values (PPV) and sensitivity. Spatial accuracy was evaluated via mean difference in straight line distances between the FHRS coordinates and the field coordinates.RESULTS: In all, 182 premises were present in the field, of which 162 were in the FHRS data giving a sensitivity of 89%. Eight outlets recorded in the FHRS data were absent in the field, giving a PPV of 95%.The mean difference in the geographical coordinates of the field audit compared to the FHRS was 110 m, and <100 m for 77% of outlets.CONCLUSIONS: After an evaluation of the validity and spatial accuracy of the FHRS data, the results suggest that it is a useful dataset for surveillance of the food environment and for intervention evaluation.

KW - Field validity

KW - Food environment

KW - Foodscape

KW - Spatial accuracy

U2 - 10.1093/pubmed/fdaa172

DO - 10.1093/pubmed/fdaa172

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 32970123

AN - SCOPUS:85122839570

VL - 43

SP - E720-E727

JO - Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom)

JF - Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom)

SN - 1741-3842

IS - 4

ER -