Piloting Home Produce Delivery to Improve Food Security, Budget, and Diet in Families with Children: A Mixed-Methods Study.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS Academic Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-08-02 DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2024.07.017
Laura M Plencner, J Nalubega Ross, Matthew Hall, Emily A Hurley, Jean L Raphael, Evelyn Donis De Miranda, Jeffrey D Colvin
{"title":"Piloting Home Produce Delivery to Improve Food Security, Budget, and Diet in Families with Children: A Mixed-Methods Study.","authors":"Laura M Plencner, J Nalubega Ross, Matthew Hall, Emily A Hurley, Jean L Raphael, Evelyn Donis De Miranda, Jeffrey D Colvin","doi":"10.1016/j.acap.2024.07.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Few children in food insecure (FI) households meet dietary recommendations for fruit and vegetables (\"produce\"). Barriers include affordability, accessibility, and desirability. Home produce delivery may reduce FI, increase produce consumption, and decrease budget tradeoffs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Evaluate the acceptability and potential impact of delivering produce through home visiting programs on FI, diet, and budget tradeoffs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective pre/post mixed methods study, 51 parents engaged in home visiting programs were enrolled. Participants completed pre- and post-program surveys on FI (18-item Food Security Scale), produce consumption, and budget tradeoffs. Pre- and post-surveys were compared using McNemar's test and weighted kappas. Interview guides were based on Social Cognitive Theory and a previously published framework. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish; thematic analysis was completed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine (56.9%) participants completed both surveys. Most were female (96.3%) and Hispanic (79.3%) (Table 1). Food security improved in the post-period, with more participants reporting high food security (pre: 6.9%, post: 31.0%) and fewer reporting very low food security (pre: 20.7%, post: 6.9%, p<0.01) (Table 2). Budgetary tradeoffs decreased in the post-program period (pre: 71.4%, post: 48.1%, p=0.03). Fifteen participants were interviewed. Themes included 1) saved money, 2) increased fruit and vegetable consumption, and 3) interest in future participation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This pilot study found that an intervention for delivery of produce through home visiting programs was acceptable to participants and resulted in potential improvements in FI and household budgets. This supports future studies to further explore the impact of this novel intervention.</p><p><strong>What's new: </strong>In this prospective mixed-methods pilot, home delivered produce was acceptable and feasible with potentially improved food security and household budgets; evidence of potential change in produce consumption was mixed. Changes in budget tradeoffs is a novel outcome in food programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50930,"journal":{"name":"Academic Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2024.07.017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Few children in food insecure (FI) households meet dietary recommendations for fruit and vegetables ("produce"). Barriers include affordability, accessibility, and desirability. Home produce delivery may reduce FI, increase produce consumption, and decrease budget tradeoffs.

Objective: Evaluate the acceptability and potential impact of delivering produce through home visiting programs on FI, diet, and budget tradeoffs.

Methods: In this prospective pre/post mixed methods study, 51 parents engaged in home visiting programs were enrolled. Participants completed pre- and post-program surveys on FI (18-item Food Security Scale), produce consumption, and budget tradeoffs. Pre- and post-surveys were compared using McNemar's test and weighted kappas. Interview guides were based on Social Cognitive Theory and a previously published framework. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish; thematic analysis was completed.

Results: Twenty-nine (56.9%) participants completed both surveys. Most were female (96.3%) and Hispanic (79.3%) (Table 1). Food security improved in the post-period, with more participants reporting high food security (pre: 6.9%, post: 31.0%) and fewer reporting very low food security (pre: 20.7%, post: 6.9%, p<0.01) (Table 2). Budgetary tradeoffs decreased in the post-program period (pre: 71.4%, post: 48.1%, p=0.03). Fifteen participants were interviewed. Themes included 1) saved money, 2) increased fruit and vegetable consumption, and 3) interest in future participation.

Conclusion: This pilot study found that an intervention for delivery of produce through home visiting programs was acceptable to participants and resulted in potential improvements in FI and household budgets. This supports future studies to further explore the impact of this novel intervention.

What's new: In this prospective mixed-methods pilot, home delivered produce was acceptable and feasible with potentially improved food security and household budgets; evidence of potential change in produce consumption was mixed. Changes in budget tradeoffs is a novel outcome in food programs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
试行家庭农产品配送以改善有子女家庭的食品安全、预算和饮食:混合方法研究。
背景:食物无保障(FI)家庭中很少有儿童能达到水果和蔬菜("农产品")的膳食建议。其中的障碍包括经济承受能力、可及性和可取性。送农产品到家可以减少食物无保障家庭,增加农产品消费,减少预算权衡:评估通过家访计划提供农产品对家庭收入、饮食和预算权衡的可接受性和潜在影响:在这项前瞻性的前后混合方法研究中,有 51 名参与家访项目的家长报名参加。参加者在项目前后完成了有关 FI(18 项粮食安全量表)、农产品消费和预算权衡的调查。使用 McNemar 检验和加权卡方对前后调查进行比较。访谈指南以社会认知理论和之前发布的框架为基础。访谈以英语或西班牙语进行,并完成了主题分析:29名参与者(56.9%)完成了两项调查。大多数参与者为女性(96.3%)和西班牙裔(79.3%)(表 1)。调查后,食品安全状况有所改善,报告食品安全状况良好的参与者人数增加(调查前:6.9%,调查后:31.0%),报告食品安全状况极差的参与者人数减少(调查前:20.7%,调查后:6.9%,p<0.05):6.9%,p 结论:这项试点研究发现,通过家访计划提供农产品的干预措施可以为参与者所接受,并有可能改善食物安全指数和家庭预算。新内容:在这项前瞻性的混合方法试点研究中,家庭配送农产品是可以接受和可行的,并有可能改善食品安全和家庭预算;农产品消费的潜在变化证据不一。预算权衡的变化是食品计划的一项新成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Pediatrics
Academic Pediatrics PEDIATRICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.90%
发文量
300
审稿时长
60 days
期刊介绍: Academic Pediatrics, the official journal of the Academic Pediatric Association, is a peer-reviewed publication whose purpose is to strengthen the research and educational base of academic general pediatrics. The journal provides leadership in pediatric education, research, patient care and advocacy. Content areas include pediatric education, emergency medicine, injury, abuse, behavioral pediatrics, holistic medicine, child health services and health policy,and the environment. The journal provides an active forum for the presentation of pediatric educational research in diverse settings, involving medical students, residents, fellows, and practicing professionals. The journal also emphasizes important research relating to the quality of child health care, health care policy, and the organization of child health services. It also includes systematic reviews of primary care interventions and important methodologic papers to aid research in child health and education.
期刊最新文献
A Narrative Review of Key Studies in Medical Education in 2023: Applying the Current Literature to Educational Practice and Scholarship. My Father's Daughter and Doctor. Quality Initiative to Increase Early Initiation and Series Completion of HPV Vaccine and its Impact on Health Disparities. Adverse Childhood Experiences and Insufficient Sleep. An Untold Story: The Feelings of Pediatric Residents Early in the Covid-19 Pandemic and What They Can Teach Us Today.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1