Shawna L McNally1, Stephanie Anzman-Frasca2, Kelly Bowman3, Mariana Beleche1, Sara C Folta4, Anjali A Patel1. 1. Department of Research, Accents on Health, Inc. (dba Healthy Dining), San Diego, CA92123, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY14214, USA. 3. Virginia Department of Education, James Monroe Building, Richmond, VA23219, USA. 4. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA02111, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of in-restaurant interventions aiming to promote healthy choices via fundraising incentives benefiting school wellness programmes and point-of-purchase nutrition promotion. DESIGN:Twelve schools were randomly assigned to one of the two intervention periods: Fundraising Incentive (FI) donated funds for visiting the study restaurant and Fundraising-Healthy Eating Incentive (F-HEI) included FI with additional funds given when selecting a healthier item. Both conditions included point-of-purchase nutrition promotions. Families were recruited to attend their designated intervention and complete a survey. Feasibility was assessed based on recruitment and participation, implementation fidelity and intervention acceptability. Efficacy was assessed by comparing participant receipts between intervention periods and by comparing overall restaurant sales during intervention v. two no-intervention time frames. SETTING:Fast-casual restaurant in Southern California. PARTICIPANTS: Parents with children attending participating schools. RESULTS:Eighty-one families visited the restaurant during the intervention, with sixty-six completing surveys. All study activities were implemented successfully, but school family participation in the intervention was low (0·95 %). Among participants completing surveys, all indicated satisfaction with the programme. The percentage of healthier items ordered was significantly greater during both FI (χ2 = 5·97, P = 0·01) and F-HEI (χ2 = 8·84, P = 0·003) v. Comparison 2. Results were similar but did not reach statistical significance when comparing the interventions to Comparison 1. CONCLUSIONS: Results support potential efficacy of this programme, but more research is needed to inform feasibility. Fidelity and acceptability data supported feasibility, but participation rates were low in this initial study. Methods evaluating this intervention with a greater proportion of parents should be considered.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of in-restaurant interventions aiming to promote healthy choices via fundraising incentives benefiting school wellness programmes and point-of-purchase nutrition promotion. DESIGN: Twelve schools were randomly assigned to one of the two intervention periods: Fundraising Incentive (FI) donated funds for visiting the study restaurant and Fundraising-Healthy Eating Incentive (F-HEI) included FI with additional funds given when selecting a healthier item. Both conditions included point-of-purchase nutrition promotions. Families were recruited to attend their designated intervention and complete a survey. Feasibility was assessed based on recruitment and participation, implementation fidelity and intervention acceptability. Efficacy was assessed by comparing participant receipts between intervention periods and by comparing overall restaurant sales during intervention v. two no-intervention time frames. SETTING: Fast-casual restaurant in Southern California. PARTICIPANTS: Parents with children attending participating schools. RESULTS: Eighty-one families visited the restaurant during the intervention, with sixty-six completing surveys. All study activities were implemented successfully, but school family participation in the intervention was low (0·95 %). Among participants completing surveys, all indicated satisfaction with the programme. The percentage of healthier items ordered was significantly greater during both FI (χ2 = 5·97, P = 0·01) and F-HEI (χ2 = 8·84, P = 0·003) v. Comparison 2. Results were similar but did not reach statistical significance when comparing the interventions to Comparison 1. CONCLUSIONS: Results support potential efficacy of this programme, but more research is needed to inform feasibility. Fidelity and acceptability data supported feasibility, but participation rates were low in this initial study. Methods evaluating this intervention with a greater proportion of parents should be considered.
Authors: Kristin A Harkins; Jeffrey T Kullgren; Scarlett L Bellamy; Jason Karlawish; Karen Glanz Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Guadalupe X Ayala; Morgan Rogers; Elva M Arredondo; Nadia R Campbell; Barbara Baquero; Susan C Duerksen; John P Elder Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Kevin G Volpp; Leslie K John; Andrea B Troxel; Laurie Norton; Jennifer Fassbender; George Loewenstein Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Simone A French; Sarah A Rydell; Nathan R Mitchell; J Michael Oakes; Brian Elbel; Lisa Harnack Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2017-09-16 Impact factor: 6.457