4.5 Article

Designing a Food Hygiene Intervention in Low-Income, Pen-Urban Context of Kisumu, Kenya: Application of the Trials of Improved Practices Methodology

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC TROP MED & HYGIENE
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0629

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [P30 ES005605] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food contamination during weaning and complementary feeding can result in high diarrheal incidence among infants. Caregiver practices are important determinants of exposure to foodborne pathogens, and can therefore play a role in reduction in infant food contamination. Through a qualitative approach, we used the Trials of Improved Practices methodology to design a food hygiene intervention in a low-income settlement of Kisumu city in Kenya. These settlements in Kisumu city host a large portion of the city's population and are faced with a high diarrheal disease burden. Caregivers were selected if they had a child aged 6-9 months, and together, we codesigned a combination of hardware and messaging components targeting handwashing with soap, hygienic feeding, reheating, and hygienic storage of infant food. Caregivers received up to six engagement visits with the research team. The visits were aimed at improving the designed hardware and messaging components. Results showed that feeding items were easily adopted by caregivers, whereas reheating of food was less observed. Households reportedly improved their food storage and handwashing practices. As a result, the hardware components were further refined and tested among the caregivers. Messaging components spurred the aspirations that caregivers had for their children and acted as reminders of practicing good food hygiene. The outcomes of the codesign process provided valuable insights on the knowledge of caregivers, a delivery approach for implementing the intervention, and further informed a subsequent trial that adopted the designed intervention to target early childhood exposure to enteric pathogens through contaminated food.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据