4.1 Article

A Low-Cost, Grab-and-Go Breakfast Intervention for Rural High School Students: Changes in School Breakfast Program Participation Among At-Risk Students in Minnesota

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 125-132

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.08.001

关键词

breakfast; meals; outcome assessment; schools; students

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01HL113235]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Evaluate the impact of a grab-and-go component embedded within a larger intervention designed to promote School Breakfast Program (SBP) participation. Design: Secondary data analysis. Setting: Rural Minnesota high schools. Participants: Eight schools were enrolled in the grab-and-go only intervention component. An at-risk sample of students (n = 364) who reported eating breakfast <= 3 d/wk at baseline was enrolled at these schools. Interventions: Grab-and-go style breakfast carts and policies were introduced to allow all students to eat outside the cafeteria. Main Outcome Measures: Administrative records were used to determine percent SBP participation (proportion of non-absent days on which fully reimbursable meals were received) for each student and school-level averages. Analysis: Linear mixed models. Results: School-level increases in SBP participation from baseline to the school year of intervention implementation were observed for schools enrolled in the grab-and-go only component (13.0% to 22.6%). Student-level increases in SBP participation were observed among the at-risk sample (7.6% to 21.9%) and among subgroups defined by free-or reduced-price meal eligibility and ethnic or racial background. Participation in SBP increased among students eligible for free or reduced-price meals from 13.9% to 30.7% and among ineligible students from 4.3% to 17.2%. Conclusions and Implications: Increasing access to the SBP and social support for eating breakfast are effective promotion strategies.

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

4.1
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