4.1 Article

A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a SNAP-Ed Farmers' Market-Based Nutrition Education Program

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
卷 47, 期 6, 页码 516-U52

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2015.08.021

关键词

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; food assistance; self-efficacy; diet; fruits; vegetables

资金

  1. USDA SNAP-Ed
  2. New York State Office of Temporary Disability and Assistance
  3. New York State Department of Health
  4. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Evaluate the effectiveness of the Stellar Farmers' Market program. Design: Mixed methods including focus groups and a quasi-experiment comparing a control group of market shoppers who had never attended a class, participants attending 1 class, and participants attending >= 2 classes. Setting: Eighteen farmers' markets in New York City. Participants: A total of 2,063 survey respondents; 47 focus group participants. Intervention: Farmers' market-based nutrition education and cooking classes paired with vouchers for fresh produce. Main Outcome Measures: Attitudes, self-efficacy, and behaviors regarding fruit and vegetable (FV) preparation and consumption. Analysis: Bivariate and regression analysis examined differences in outcomes as a function of number of classes attended. Qualitative analysis based on a grounded theory approach. Results: Attending >= 1 classes was associated with more positive attitudes toward consuming FV; attending >= 2 classes was associated with greater FV consumption and higher self-efficacy to prepare and consume produce. Respondents attending >= 2 classes consumed almost one-half cup more FV daily than others. These associations remained after controlling for age, race/ethnicity, education, and gender. Conclusions and Implications: Offering nutrition education and cooking classes at farmers' markets may contribute to improving attitudes, self-efficacy, and behaviors regarding produce preparation and consumption in low-income populations.

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