| Literature DB >> 21801411 |
Joey C Eisenmann1, Katherine Alaimo, Karin Pfeiffer, Hye-Jin Paek, Joseph J Carlson, Heather Hayes, Tracy Thompson, Deanne Kelleher, Hyun J Oh, Julie Orth, Sue Randall, Kellie Mayfield, Denise Holmes.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper describes Project FIT, a collaboration between the public school system, local health systems, physicians, neighborhood associations, businesses, faith-based leaders, community agencies and university researchers to develop a multi-faceted approach to promote physical activity and healthy eating toward the general goal of preventing and reducing childhood obesity among children in Grand Rapids, MI, USA. METHODS/Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21801411 PMCID: PMC3163551 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-607
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Project FIT Advisory Committee Members and Project Partners.
| YMCA of Greater Grand Rapids |
| Grand Rapid African American Health Institute |
| Neighborhood Ventures, Inc |
| Kent Count-Michigan State University Extension |
| Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce |
| Kent County Coordinated School Health |
| Friends of Grand Rapids Parks |
| Hispanic Center |
| Grand Valley State University Kirkhof College of Nursing |
| Grand Valley State University Community Research Institute |
| Grand Rapids Public Schools |
| Lighthouse Communities |
| True Light Baptist Church |
| Spectrum Health/Helen DeVos Children's Hospital |
| Metro Health |
Demographic characteristics of the schools and study population, Fall 2009.
| School Enrollment (PK-5) | 435 | 456 | 235 | 462 | 362 | 1950 |
| Total Eligible Sample (3-5) | 170 | 174 | 87 | 181 | 156 | 768 |
| Sample Size | 114 | 85 | 60 | 86 | 89 | 434 |
| % Response | 67% | 49% | 69% | 48% | 57% | 57% |
| % Free-Reduced Lunch | 98.0% | 95.3% | 97.8% | 96.5% | 96.7% | 96.9% |
Physical characteristics, physical activity, screen time, and dietary measures of the total sample and by control and intervention schools grouped by sex.
| Control School | Intervention Schools | TOTAL | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males | Females | Total | Males | Females | Total | n = 403 | |
| Age (yrs) | 9.6 (0.9) | 9.7 (1.0) | 9.7 (0.9) | 9.6 (0.9) | 9.6 (1.0) | 9.6 (0.9) | 9.7 (0.9) |
| BMI percentile | 77.5 (24.7) | 70.0 (29.0) | 73.2 (27.3) | 74.3 (24.7) | 71.2 (28.8) | 72.6 (26.9) | 73.0 (27.0) |
| % Underweight | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1.3% | 0.7% | 0.5% |
| % Normal weight | 46.8% | 55.9% | 51.9% | 50.7% | 50.6% | 50.7% | 51.0% |
| % Overweight | 19.1% | 11.9% | 15.1% | 17.4% | 19.0% | 18.2% | 17.4% |
| % Obese | 25.5% | 28.8% | 27.4% | 26.1% | 22.8% | 24.3% | 25.1% |
| % Severely Obese | 8.5% | 3.4% | 5.7% | 5.8% | 6.3% | 6.1% | 6.0% |
| Self-report physical activity (d/wk) | 4.3 (2.7) | 3.2 (2.5) | 3.7 (2.6) | 3.9 (2.6) | 4.0 (2.5) | 4.0 (2.5) | 3.9 (2.6) |
| % reporting ≥5 days | 48.8% | 33.3% | 40.0% | 46.4% | 45.0% | 45.7% | 43.7% |
| % reporting 7 days | 39.5% | 21.1% | 29.0% | 31.0% | 30.0% | 30.4% | 29.9% |
| Weekday TV (hrs/d) | 1.4 (1.4) | 1.7 (1.5) | 1.6 (1.4) | 1.9 (1.5) | 1.8 (1.4) | 1.8 (1.5) | 1.7 (1.5) |
| Weekend TV (hrs/d) | 2.2 (1.3) | 2.4 (1.3) | 2.3 (1.3) | 2.4 (1.4) | 2.4 (1.4) | 2.4 (1.4) | 2.4 (1.4) |
| Weekly TV (hrs/d) | 1.7 (1.2) | 1.9 (1.3) | 1.8 (1.3) | 2.0 (1.4) | 2.0 (1.3) | 2.0 (1.3) | 1.9 (1.3) |
| Weekday Screen Time (hrs/d) | 3.7 (3.0) | 3.4 (3.0) | 3.5 (3.0) | 5.1 (3.4) | 3.9 (3.4) | 4.4 (3.4) | 4.1 (3.3) |
| Weekend Screen Time (hrs/d) | 5.6 (3.1) | 4.7 (3.0) | 5.1 (3.1) | 6.0 (3.0) | 4.9(3.1) | 5.4 (3.1) | 5.3 (3.1) |
| Total Screen Time (hrs/d) | 4.3 (2.8) | 3.8 (2.8) | 4.0 (2.8) | 5.4 (3.2) | 4.2 (3.2) | 4.7 (3.2) | 4.5 (3.1) |
| % ≥ 2 hrs/d screen time | 74.4% | 73.1% | 73.7% | 82.1% | 71.8% | 76.7% | 75.6% |
| Whole grain breads (times/d yesterday) | 0.50 (0.77) | 0.41 (0.56) | 0.45 (0.66) | 0.67 (0.79) | 0.59 (0.72) | 0.62 (0.75) | 0.58 (0.73) |
| Cereals (whole grain) (times/d yesterday) | 0.72 (0.88) | 0.37 (0.49) | 0.52 (0.70) | 0.70 (0.94) | 0.55 (0.78) | 0.62 (0.86) | 0.60 (0.82) |
| French fries or chips (times/d yesterday) | 1.00 (1.12) | 0.85 (0.87) | 0.91 (0.98) | 1.00 (0.99) | 0.88 (0.87) | 0.93 (0.93) | 0.93 (0.94) |
| Vegetables (times/d yesterday) | 1.18 (1.15) | 0.93 (0.81) | 1.04 (0.97) | 1.09 (1.03) | 0.90 (0.92) | 0.99 (0.98) | 1.00 (0.97) |
| Beans (times/d yesterday) | 0.36 (0.61) | 0.19 (0.39) | 0.26 (0.50) | 0.51 (0.79) | 0.41 (0.68) | 0.46 (0.74) | 0.41 (0.69) |
| Fruit (times/d yesterday) | 1.57 (1.09) | 1.61 (1.00) | 1.59 (1.03) | 1.42 (1.05) | 1.22 (0.92) | 1.31 (0.99) | 1.38 (1.01) |
| Fruit juice (times/d yesterday) | 0.91 (0.96) | 1.07 (0.91) | 1.00 (0.93) | 1.05 (0.97) | 0.96 (0.89) | 1.00 (0.93) | 1.00 (0.93) |
| Dairy beverages and food* (times/d yesterday) | 3.3 (2.2) | 2.8 (1.4) | 3.0 (1.8) | 3.2 (2.0) | 2.6 (1.7) | 2.9 (1.8) | 2.9 (1.8) |
| Sugar Drinks** (times/d yesterday) | 1.9 (1.3) | 1.4 (1.1) | 1.6 (1.2) | 1.9 (1.6) | 1.4 (1.5) | 1.6 (1.6) | 1.6 (1.5) |
| Desserts and Candy*** (times/d yesterday) | 2.0 (2.1) | 1.3 (1.6) | 1.6 (1.8) | 2.1 (2.2) | 2.1 (2.0) | 2.1 (2.1) | 2.0 (2.0) |
| Entrée | 0.75 (0.25) | 0.72 (0.27) | 0.73 (0.26) | ||||
| Fruit | 0.55 (0.33) | 0.65 (0.29) | 0.61 (0.31) | ||||
| Vegetable | 0.35 (0.32) | 0.37 (0.32) | 0.36 (0.32) | ||||
| Grain | 0.65 (0.31) | 0.61 (0.31) | 0.63 (0.31) | ||||
| Milk (ml) | 58.6 (68.9) | 79.3 (73.4) | 69.8 (71.9) | ||||
Diet measures expressed as times eaten yesterday. Values are mean (standard deviation) or percentage
*Summary variable combining 3 SPAN items: cheese, milk and yogurt
**Summary variable combining 2 SPAN items: sugar drinks and pop
***Summary variable combining 3 SPAN items: desserts, frozen desserts and chocolate candy
#proportion of item consumed. Note: data from control school was lost due to technical difficulties.
NEMS Point Totals for surveyed stores.
| Store ID | Availability Points | Price Points | Quality Points | Total Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1012 | 31 | 2 | 6 | 39 |
| 1026 | 32 | -2 | 6 | 36 |
| 1008 | 28 | 3 | -* | 31 |
| 1062 | 20 | 3 | 5 | 28 |
| 1085 | 18 | 4 | 5 | 27 |
| 1036 | 21 | 0 | 5 | 26 |
| 1011 | 18 | 1 | 6 | 25 |
| 1039 | 17 | 1 | 6 | 24 |
| 1018 | 17 | 0 | 6 | 23 |
| 1070 | 17 | 0 | 6 | 23 |
| 1049 | 23 | -1 | -* | 22 |
| 1064 | 20 | -3 | 5 | 22 |
| 1007 | 18 | -1 | 3 | 20 |
| 1016 | 12 | 2 | 6 | 20 |
| 1075 | 16 | -2 | 5 | 19 |
| 1025 | 15 | 0 | 4 | 19 |
| 1032 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
| 1043 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 15 |
| 1099 | 11 | -1 | 3 | 13 |
| 1078 | 11 | -2 | 3 | 12 |
| 1051 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
| 1048 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
| 1042 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Avg. for 23 Neighborhood Stores | 17 | 0.4 | 3.5 | 21 |
| A | 36 | 2 | 6 | 44 |
| B | 35 | 3 | 6 | 44 |
| C | 33 | 0 | 6 | 39 |
| D | 28 | 4 | 6 | 38 |
*Student research assistants did not record quality points for stores 1008 and 1049. It is likely that each store would have gained up to 6 more points had the quality of the fresh fruits and vegetables at each store been recorded. All four stores with zero quality points offered none of the ten identified fresh fruits or vegetables.