Archontoula Dalma1, Dina Zota1, Matina Kouvari2, Christina-Maria Kastorini1, Afroditi Veloudaki1, Paloma Ellis-Montalban2, Athanassios Petralias3, Athena Linos4. 1. Institute of Preventive Medicine, Environmental & Occupational Health, Prolepsis, 7 Fragoklisias Str., Maroussi, 15125, Greece; Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 75 Mikras Asias Str., Athens, 11527, Greece. 2. Institute of Preventive Medicine, Environmental & Occupational Health, Prolepsis, 7 Fragoklisias Str., Maroussi, 15125, Greece. 3. Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 75 Mikras Asias Str., Athens, 11527, Greece. 4. Institute of Preventive Medicine, Environmental & Occupational Health, Prolepsis, 7 Fragoklisias Str., Maroussi, 15125, Greece; Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 75 Mikras Asias Str., Athens, 11527, Greece. Electronic address: a.linos@prolepsis.gr.
Abstract
AIMS: To qualitatively evaluate the optimal intervention (food-voucher approach vs. free daily meal distribution), aimed at reducing food insecurity and promoting healthy eating among students attending public schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. METHODS: We randomly assigned 34 schools to one of the two interventions: students in 17 schools received adaily lunch-box and parents in the other 17 schools received a food voucher of equal value once a month. All students were offered the opportunity to participate. We conducted 30 focus groups in all participating schools (17 in the meal distribution and 13 in the food voucher schools). Eligible participants included parents (n = 106), educators (n = 66) and school principals (n = 34). We qualitatively evaluated their perceptions and attitudes towards the program. RESULTS: Important differences were observed between the two approaches, with more favourable perceptions being reported for the meal distribution approach. More specifically, social stigmatization was minimized in the meal distribution approach, through the participation of all students, compared with the food-voucher participants who reported feelings of embarrassment and fear of stigmatization. Secondly, the meal distribution approach alleviated child food insecurity through the provision of the daily meal, while the food-voucher intervention helped manage household food insecurity, as vouchers were mainly used for purchasing food for family meals. Furthermore, the educational and experiential nature of the meal distribution approach intensified healthy eating promotion, while the food-voucher intervention was efficient mainly for conscious parents regarding healthy eating. CONCLUSIONS: The meal distribution intervention was considered more effective than the food-voucher one. Hence, for interventions aiming at tackling food insecurity of children and adolescents, public health focus could be oriented towards school-based in kind food assistance.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To qualitatively evaluate the optimal intervention (food-voucher approach vs. free daily meal distribution), aimed at reducing food insecurity and promoting healthy eating among students attending public schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. METHODS: We randomly assigned 34 schools to one of the two interventions: students in 17 schools received a daily lunch-box and parents in the other 17 schools received a food voucher of equal value once a month. All students were offered the opportunity to participate. We conducted 30 focus groups in all participating schools (17 in the meal distribution and 13 in the food voucher schools). Eligible participants included parents (n = 106), educators (n = 66) and school principals (n = 34). We qualitatively evaluated their perceptions and attitudes towards the program. RESULTS: Important differences were observed between the two approaches, with more favourable perceptions being reported for the meal distribution approach. More specifically, social stigmatization was minimized in the meal distribution approach, through the participation of all students, compared with the food-voucher participants who reported feelings of embarrassment and fear of stigmatization. Secondly, the meal distribution approach alleviated child food insecurity through the provision of the daily meal, while the food-voucher intervention helped manage household food insecurity, as vouchers were mainly used for purchasing food for family meals. Furthermore, the educational and experiential nature of the meal distribution approach intensified healthy eating promotion, while the food-voucher intervention was efficient mainly for conscious parents regarding healthy eating. CONCLUSIONS: The meal distribution intervention was considered more effective than the food-voucher one. Hence, for interventions aiming at tackling food insecurity of children and adolescents, public health focus could be oriented towards school-based in kind food assistance.
Authors: Rebecca K Hodder; Kate M O'Brien; Fiona G Stacey; Flora Tzelepis; Rebecca J Wyse; Kate M Bartlem; Rachel Sutherland; Erica L James; Courtney Barnes; Luke Wolfenden Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-11-07
Authors: Rebecca K Hodder; Kate M O'Brien; Fiona G Stacey; Rebecca J Wyse; Tara Clinton-McHarg; Flora Tzelepis; Erica L James; Kate M Bartlem; Nicole K Nathan; Rachel Sutherland; Emma Robson; Sze Lin Yoong; Luke Wolfenden Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-05-17
Authors: Nurul Ain Azizan; Angeliki Papadaki; Tin Tin Su; Muhammad Yazid Jalaludin; Shooka Mohammadi; Maznah Dahlui; Mohd Nahar Azmi Mohamed; Hazreen Abdul Majid Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 5.717