| Literature DB >> 33801962 |
Rachel Hildrey1, Heidi Karner1, Jessica Serrao1, Carolyn A Lin2, Ellen Shanley1, Valerie B Duffy1.
Abstract
We tested the feasibility of a school-based, liking-based behavioral screener (Pediatric Adapted Liking Survey (PALS)) and message program to motivate healthy diet and activity behaviors. Students, recruited from middle- (n = 195) or low-income (n = 310) schools, online-reported: likes/dislikes of foods/beverages and physical/sedentary activities, scored into healthy behavior indexes (HBI); perceived food insecurity; and sleep indicators. Students received tailored motivating or reinforcing messages (aligned with behavior change theories) and indicated their willingness to improve target behaviors as well as program feasibility (acceptability; usefulness). Although HBIs averaged lower in the lower versus middle-income school, frequencies of food insecurity were similar (39-44% of students). Students in both schools reported sleep concerns (middle-income school-43% reported insufficient hours of sleep/night; low-income school-55% reported excessive daytime sleepiness). Students across both schools confirmed the PALS acceptability (>85% agreement to answering questions quickly and completion without help) and usefulness (≥73% agreed PALS got them thinking about their behaviors) as well as the tailored message acceptability (≥73% reported the messages as helpful; learning new information; wanting to receive more messages) and usefulness (73% reported "liking" to try one behavioral improvement). Neither message type nor response varied significantly by food insecurity or sleep measures. Thus, this program feasibly delivered students acceptable and useful messages to motivate healthier behaviors and identified areas for school-wide health promotion.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; children; diet; eHealth; food insecurity; nutrition; obesity prevention; physical activity; school-based; sleep; tailored interventions
Year: 2021 PMID: 33801962 PMCID: PMC8001433 DOI: 10.3390/foods10030579
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Applying the modified ADAPT-ITT Model [26] to the Pediatric Adapted Liking Survey (PALS) plus tailored messages program for students in school A and school B.
| Phase | Methodology |
|---|---|
| 1. Assessment |
Conducted interviews with community stakeholders to identify concerns with children’s health behaviors and food security. Conducted school meal observations and plate waste studies to assess children’s response to the school nutrition programs. |
| 2. Decision |
Decision to use validated behavioral screening [ Decision to adapt the program as the evidence-based intervention to address the perceived needs of the school. |
| 3. Administration |
Collaboration between the research team and stakeholders in the school and community to adapt the program to School A. |
| 4. Production |
Produced the adapted program and conducted with students in School A. Produced reports for stakeholders regarding program findings. Identified areas for improvement while maintaining the theory-based core elements of the program and for comparability across schools. |
| 5. Topical Experts |
Identified nutrition, school foodservice, and communications experts. Identified another school to test the adapted program and test the generalizability of findings. Added the improvements with School B stakeholder feedback on the program administration, including functional outcomes of insufficient sleep. |
| 6. Integration |
Conducted the program in School B maintaining key components to allow integration of findings across both schools. |
| 7. Testing |
Analyzed results across School A and B to determine acceptability and usefulness of the adapted program. |
Description of students by middle school.
| % of Participants: | % of Participants: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Ten | 0 | 1.3 |
| Gender | Male | 51 | 48 |
| Race/Ethnicity | White | 22.5 | 9.7 |
| How do you feel today? | Smile rating | 68 | 68 |
| Food Insecurity † | Food Secure | 61 | 56 |
| Sleep ‡ | Insufficient Sleep | 43 | 55 |
† Reporting “sometimes” or “often” to one of three questions about food insecurity. ‡ Insufficient sleep was defined differently across schools—School A was less than the recommended sleep hours per age group (<10 hours for 10–11 years; <8.5 hours for 12–14 years) [27]; School B was ≥15 on the summed score across eight items of Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale [24].
Figure 1Students’ average reported liking of foods and behaviors at both schools. The *,** indicates p < 0.05; School B had significantly lower liking of healthier groups (protein, fiber, and vegetables).
Figure 2Distribution of the healthy behavior index (HBI) scores for School A and School B, with the horizontal green line approximating the mean difference in each school.
PALS food and activity groups and Healthy Behavior Index (HBI) scores (and its diet and physical activity groups) in middle school students (School A and School B) by self-reported food security versus food insecurity †.
| Food Secure | Food Insecure | |
|---|---|---|
| Sedentary | 63.77 ± 1.65 | 64.69 ± 1.92 |
| Sweet | 55.94 ± 1.85 | 59.55 ± 2.15 |
| Phys Act | 50.47 ± 2.05 | 40.70 ± 2.38 |
| Sugar Sweetened Beverages | 47.96 ± 2.14 | 49.29 ± 2.49 |
| Salty | 43.10 ± 1.93 | 46.66 ± 2.23 |
| Fruit | 37.56 ± 2.27 | 34.42 ± 2.64 |
| Dairy | 27.16 ± 2.40 | 27.27 ± 2.79 |
| Protein | 19.14 ± 1.93 | 17.47 ± 2.24 |
| Fiber | 2.00 ± 2.31 | 4.10 ± 2.68 |
| Vegetable | −9.11 ± 2.90 | −12.3 ± 3.32 |
| HBI ‡ | −5.16 ± 2.19 | −9.00 ± 2.55 |
† Students who responded “sometimes” or “often” to at least one of the three questions about food insecurity were considered to be food insecure. Only students that responded “never” to all three questions were considered to be food secure. ‡ F (1,491) = 1.276, p = 0.26.
Percentage of food secure and food insecure students (by self-report) within each school by health promotion message type †. Chi-squared testing within a school was non-significant.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food Secure | Food Insecure | Food Secure | Food Insecure | |
| Only Reinforcing | 11.8 | 14.9 | 5.8 | 5.8 |
| Only Motivating | 47.4 | 45.6 | 56.9 | 46.8 |
| Both Types of Messages | 40.8 | 39.5 | 37.3 | 47.4 |
† Message wording is similar to the previously published [7].
Figure 3Percentage of students in School A and B who received at least one motivating message reported ≥ “like it” to try the target behavior of the message and more students were willing to replace a less healthy item with a healthier item than to add the healthier item to their diet.