| Literature DB >> 31775696 |
H C Koo1,2, B K Poh1, A T Ruzita3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have reported that improvement of dietary habits through increased whole grain foods consumption at an early age has the potential to lead to betterment in lifelong health and wellness. The GReat-Child Trial™ was a 12-week quasi-experimental study with 6 months follow-up investigating a multi-component whole grain intervention, which consisted of behavioral, personal and environmental factors based on Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the GReat-Child Trial™, as well as to determine the changes in knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of whole grains consumption among overweight/obese children.Entities:
Keywords: Attitudes; Children; Intervention; Knowledge; Practice; Whole grains
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31775696 PMCID: PMC6881981 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7888-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Social Cognitive Theory concepts and application for GReat-Child trial
| SCT constructs | Application | Learning activities |
|---|---|---|
| Behavioral Domain | ||
| Behavioral capability | Provided whole grain and healthy eating knowledge. | • Participation in whole grain and healthy balanced diet quiz in six times of 30-min nutrition education classes. • Children were required to draw the healthy plate model on the blackboard. • Using food labels to identify foods as whole grain or refined grains. • Locating grain food group and grain food items on the Food Guide Pyramid. • Individual diet counselling for the parents to identify the whole-grain foods, as well as the advantages of whole grain consumption. |
| Food choice | Served a variety of whole grain foods on a daily basis. | • Tasting whole grain foods for taste, appearance, texture and acceptance. • Researcher introducing variety of whole-grain food during school delivery and let the children familiarizing with it. • Identifying whole grain and healthy balanced diet’s labels during individual diet counselling for the parents. |
| Personal Domain | ||
| Self-efficacy | Provided practical experiences that emphasized tasting, selecting and preparing whole grain foods. | • Whole grain recipe booklet provided to parents during individual diet counselling, to help them prepare and serve whole-grain food at home. • Handy tips included in the whole grain booklet during individual diet counselling, to show the parents easier way to achieve the recommendation to eat half of the grains as whole grain. • Learning about menu planning for balanced diet during six 30-min nutrition education and individual diet counselling. • Reading food and nutrition labels on the packaging of whole grain foods, to overcome barriers in selecting and identifying the whole-grain foods. |
| Reinforcements | Children were rewarded and received praise when they correctly answer questions on whole-grain and healthy eating diet. | • Participation in whole grain and healthy balanced diet quiz during nutrition education classes. |
| Environmental Domain | ||
| Observational learning | Served a variety of whole grain foods on a daily basis. | • Children observed how to prepare a convenient whole grain breakfast. • Whole grain food recipes provided to parents. |
| Availability | Provided information to encourage the parents to increase availability of whole-grain foods and healthy diet at home. | • Individual diet counselling and booklet provided to advocate for consumption of more whole grain foods, as well as balanced diet at home. |
Fig. 1Flow of participants through the GReat-Child Trial™
Acceptability of the GReat-Child Trial™ among all children from intervention group (n = 40)
| Evaluation questions | Total number of children; n (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly disagree | |
| I understood the overall learning objectives in the GReat-Child Trial. | 28 (70.0) | 8 (20.0) | 4 (10.0) | – |
| Through the GReat-Child Trial, my knowledge in whole grain and healthy balanced diet was enhanced. | 28 (70.0) | 10 (25.0) | 2 (5.0) | – |
| Through GReat-Child Trial, my skill in identifying whole grain foods was enhanced. | 26 (65.0) | 12 (30.0) | 2 (5.0) | – |
| Through GReat-Child Trial, my ability in whole grain’s knowledge and skill sharing with my family and friends was enhanced. | 25 (62.5) | 14 (35.0) | 1 (2.5) | – |
| I understood all the contents in the nutrition education classes. | 25 (62.5) | 14 (35.0) | 1 (2.5) | – |
| I understood the examples of whole grain foods which have been demonstrated in the nutrition education classes. | 26 (65.0) | 14(35.0) | – | – |
| I was satisfied with the facts and examples explained in the nutrition education classes. | 27 (67.5) | 13 (32.5) | – | – |
| I was involved actively in the nutrition education sessions. | 25 (62.5) | 14 (35.0) | 1 (2.5) | – |
| I was given ample opportunity to clarify my questions. | 30 (75.0) | 10 (25.0) | – | – |
| I was satisfied with the GReat-Child Trial’s schedule arrangement. | 28 (70.0) | 10 (25.0) | 1 (2.5) | 1 (2.5) |
| I was satisfied with the GReat-Child Trial’s venue arrangement. | 29 (72.5) | 9 (22.5) | 2 (5.0) | – |
| I was satisfied with the GReat-Child Trial’s module. | 26 (65.0) | 12 (30.0) | 2 (5.0) | – |
| I was satisfied with the whole grain foods which were served during recess time. | 26 (65.0) | 6 (15.0) | 7 (17.5) | 1 (2.5) |
Baseline socio-demography, physical characteristics and knowledge, attitudes and practices’ scores toward whole grains among children who successfully completed the entire trial (n = 63)
| Total (n = 63) | Intervention ( | Control ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age; mean ± SD | 10.6 ± 0.6 | 10.7 ± 0.6 | 10.6 ± 0.6 | 0.882 |
| Sex | 0.262 | |||
| Boys; n (%) | 33 (52.4) | 18 (58.1) | 15 (46.9) | |
| Girls; n (%) | 30 (47.6) | 13 (41.9) | 17 (53.1) | |
| Household income; mean ± SD | 4052.4 ± 1873.8 | 4506.5 ± 2384.9 | 3612.5 ± 1054.6 | 0.058 |
| Low (< RM2300); n (%) | 6 (9.5) | 3(9.7) | 3 (9.4) | 0.452 |
| Medium (RM2300-RM5599); n (%) | 50 (79.4) | 23 (74.2) | 27 (84.4) | |
| High (≥RM5600); n (%) | 7 (11.1) | 5 (16.1) | 2 (6.2) | |
| Physical characteristics | ||||
| Weight (kg); mean ± SD | 47.8 ± 13.0 | 50.4 ± 14.9 | 45.2 ± 10.4 | 0.486 |
| Height (cm); mean ± SD | 139.8 ± 7.5 | 142.1 ± 8.2 | 137.5 ± 6.2 | 0.093 |
| BMI-for-age z-score; mean ± SD | 2.2 ± 0.9 | 2.3 ± 1.0 | 2.1 ± 0.8 | 0.324 |
| Knowledge, attitudes and practices’ scores toward whole grain | ||||
| Knowledge; mean ± SD | 6.9 ± 2.0 | 6.7 ± 1.9 | 7.0 ± 2.1 | 0.610 |
| Attitudes; mean ± SD | 45.4 ± 5.6 | 45.4 ± 5.5 | 45.4 ± 5.8 | 0.993 |
| Practices; mean ± SD | 16.7 ± 2.2 | 16.7 ± 2.0 | 16.8 ± 2.4 | 0.852 |
Age, weight, height, BMI-for-age z-score, household income (in mean ± SD), knowledge, attitudes and practices toward whole grains variables were tested using Independent t-test; Sex and household income (in categories) variables were tested using Chi-square test; SD: standard deviation; Full marks for knowledge domain = 15 marks; Full marks for attitudes domain = 75 marks; Full marks for practice domain = 50 marks
Fig. 2Between-group comparison of scores of knowledge, attitudes and practices toward whole grains over 9 months (n = 63)
Changes in within-group scores of knowledge, attitudes and practices toward whole grains (n = 63)
| Comparison | Intervention group | Control group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (95% CI) | Mean (95% CI) | ||||
| Knowledge score | T1-T0 | 6.8 (6.5,7.1) | < 0.001*** | 0.1 (−0.3,0.5) | 0.508 |
| T2-T0 | 6.8 (6.5,7.2) | < 0.001*** | 0.4 (−0.2,1.0) | 0.222 | |
| T2-T1 | 0.1 (− 0.2,0.3) | 0.587 | 0.3 (− 0.2,0.7) | 0.277 | |
| Attitudes score | T1-T0 | 12.5 (11.4,13.5) | < 0.001*** | −0.7 (−2.0,0.6) | 0.286 |
| T2-T0 | 9.2 (8.1,10.2) | < 0.001*** | −0.4 (−1.5,0.6) | 0.407 | |
| T2-T1 | −3.3 (−4.4,-2.2) | < 0.001*** | 0.3 (−0.4,0.9) | 0.412 | |
| Practice score | T1-T0 | 10.6 (8.9,12.2) | < 0.001*** | 0.5 (−1.0,2.0) | 0.505 |
| T2-T0 | 8.0 (5.3,10.7) | < 0.001*** | 0.3 (−1.2,1.8) | 0.664 | |
| T2-T1 | −2.6 (−4.6,-0.5) | 0.016* | −0.2 (−0.5,0.2) | 0.259 | |
T0 - Baseline; T1 – post-intervention (thirteenth week); T2 – follow-up (ninth month); ***Statistically significant at p-value < 0.001; *Statistically significant at p-value < 0.05; Repeated measures ANCOVA within group analysis was applied followed by pairwise comparison with confidence interval adjustment; Household income dan baseline variables were controlled by using repeated measures
ANCOVA
Baseline socio-demography, physical characteristics and knowledge, attitudes and practice scores toward whole grains among children who enrolled in baseline recruitment (n = 83)
| Total ( | Intervention ( | Control ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age; mean ± SD | 10.6 ± 0.6 | 10.6 ± 0.6 | 10.6 ± 0.6 | 0.882 |
| Sex | 0.219 | |||
| Boys; n (%) | 44 (53.0) | 24 (60.0) | 20 (46.5) | |
| Girls; n (%) | 39 (47.0) | 16 (40.0) | 23 (53.5) | |
| Household income; mean ± SD | 3977.1 ± 1759.6 | 4467.5 ± 2229.5 | 3520.9 ± 993.7 | 0.159 |
| Low (< RM2300); n (%) | 7 (8.4) | 4 (10.0) | 3 (7.0) | 0.134 |
| Medium (RM2300-RM5599); n (%) | 67 (80.7) | 29 (72.5) | 38 (88.4) | |
| High (≥RM5600); n (%) | 9 (10.9) | 7 (17.5) | 2 (4.6) | |
| Physical characteristics | ||||
| Weight (kg); mean ± SD | 47.0 ± 11.9 | 50.1 ± 13.5 | 44.1 ± 9.5 | 0.754 |
| Height (cm); mean ± SD | 139.1 ± 7.2 | 141.3 ± 7.9 | 137.0 ± 5.9 | 0.533 |
| BMI-for-age z-score; mean ± SD | 2.3 ± 0.9 | 2.5 ± 1.0 | 2.1 ± 0.8 | 0.106 |
| Knowledge, attitudes and practices’ scores toward whole grain | ||||
| Knowledge; mean ± SD | 6.8 ± 1.8 | 7.1 ± 1.8 | 6.4 ± 1.8 | 0.294 |
| Attitudes; mean ± SD | 47.1 ± 6.5 | 45.7 ± 6.7 | 48.5 ± 6.1 | 0.538 |
| Practices; mean ± SD | 16.7 ± 2.2 | 16.7 ± 1.9 | 16.8 ± 2.4 | 0.815 |
Age, weight, height, BMI-for-age z-score, household income (in mean ± SD), knowledge, attitudes and practices toward whole grains variables were tested using Independent t-test; Sex and household income (in categories) variables were tested using Chi-square test; SD: standard deviation; Full marks for knowledge domain = 15 marks; Full marks for attitudes domain = 75 marks; Full marks for practice domain = 50 marks