| Literature DB >> 33962686 |
Firoozeh Mostafavi1, Fereshteh Zamani-Alavijeh1, Marjan Mansourian2, Fatemeh Bastami3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skipping breakfast and replacing it with non-nutritious snacks are progressively increasing among adolescents. This study aimed to develop an educational intervention based on the Social Marketing Model and evaluate its effects on healthy breakfast and snack consumption among female adolescent students.Entities:
Keywords: Breakfast; Mixed-methods study; Snack; Social Marketing Model; Student
Year: 2021 PMID: 33962686 PMCID: PMC8106147 DOI: 10.1186/s41043-021-00245-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Health Popul Nutr ISSN: 1606-0997 Impact factor: 2.000
Fig. 1Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow chart for trial
SM mix adapted for the healthy breakfast and snack consumption
| SM mix | Strategies |
|---|---|
| Product: The product strategy refers to the preferences which restrict the consumption of healthy breakfast. | Serving method (a homemade decorated snack served in a dish at school) Diversity (diversity in different meals instead of diversity in a single meal) Characteristics which show that the product is healthy (packed with the ingredient table on the package, to be homemade) The appearance of the package Taste Warm food serving |
| Price: The cost strategy refers to the readiness for paying the time-related, psychological, financial, and social costs of healthy breakfast consumption. | Reducing price/barriers through • Making snacks at home • Promoting perceived benefits and making prices acceptable through the theoretical concepts related to the behavior (i.e. fear over the complications of breakfast skipping, perceived self-efficacy, and perceived benefits • Implementing the intervention at school • Direct experience of snack making and preparation |
| Place: The place strategy denotes the pleasant physical and social environment for healthy breakfast consumption. | Healthy snack time at school Placing healthy snack in school buffet |
| Promotion: This strategy consists of the channels which promote the consumption of healthy breakfast. | Making the product, place, and prices attractive through formal and informal channels Educational methods and devices (animation, workshop, poster, painting, etc.) |
Fig. 2The implementation of the intervention based on the Edgar Dale’s Pyramid of Learning (cone of experience)
Between-group comparisons concerning participants’ and their parents’ demographic characteristics as well as the place of breakfast consumption
| Group/characteristics | Intervention | Control | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | Total | % | Total | |||||
| School type | Public | 24 | 52.2 | 46 | 28 | 58.3 | 48 | 0.60 |
| Private | 22 | 47.8 | 20 | 41.7 | ||||
| Educational level | Seventh | 15 | 32.6 | 46 | 18 | 37.5 | 48 | 0.90 |
| Eighth | 15 | 32.6 | 15 | 31.3 | ||||
| Ninth | 16 | 34.8 | 15 | 31.3 | ||||
| Father occupation | Self-employed | 18 | 41.9 | 43 | 23 | 47.9 | 48 | 0.40 |
| Employee | 23 | 53.5 | 20 | 41.7 | ||||
| Retired | 2 | 4.7 | 5 | 410.4 | ||||
| Mother occupation | Housewife | 32 | 69.6 | 46 | 45 | 93.8 | 48 | 0.002 |
| Employee | 14 | 30.14 | 3 | 6.3 | ||||
| Father educational level | Below diploma | 15 | 34.9 | 43 | 9 | 18.8 | 48 | 0.01 |
| Diploma | 5 | 11.6 | 18 | 37.5 | ||||
| University | 23 | 53.5 | 21 | 43.8 | ||||
| Mother educational level | Below diploma | 13 | 28.3 | 46 | 12 | 25 | 48 | < 0.001 |
| Diploma | 11 | 23.9 | 32 | 66.7 | ||||
| University | 22 | 47.8 | 4 | 8.3 | ||||
| Income level | Low | 7 | 15.2 | 46 | 2 | 4.2 | 48 | 0.08 |
| Moderate | 19 | 41.3 | 29 | 60.4 | ||||
| High | 20 | 43.5 | 17 | 35.4 | ||||
| Family size | 3 | 5 | 10.9 | 46 | 7 | 14.6 | 48 | 0.80 |
| 4 | 22 | 47.8 | 20 | 41.7 | ||||
| 5 or more | 19 | 41.3 | 21 | 43.8 | ||||
| Birth rank | First | 20 | 43.5 | 46 | 25 | 52.1 | 48 | 0.60 |
| Second | 12 | 26.1 | 13 | 27.1 | ||||
| Third or more | 14 | 30.4 | 10 | 20.8 | ||||
| Breakfast consumption place | Home | 10 | 21.7 | 46 | 15 | 31.3 | 48 | 0.50 |
| School | 34 | 73.9 | 32 | 66.7 | ||||
| Doesn’t matter | 2 | 4.3 | 1 | 2.1 | ||||
*The results of the chi-square test
The comparison of the mean scores of product, price, promotion, and behavior in the intervention and control groups before and after the intervention
| Variables | Groups | Before intervention | After intervention | Mean difference± standard deviation | 95% confidence interval for difference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard deviation | Mean | Standard deviation | ||||||
| Lower | Upper | ||||||||
| Restrictive preferences (product) | Intervention control | 74.78 75.77 | 11.2 12.13 | 79.13 76.05 | 11.3 7.82 | 0.02 0.80 | −4.65±12.5 −0.26±13.88 | −8.06 −4.43 | −0.63 3.90 |
| 0.60 | 0.13 | ||||||||
| Readiness for paying the costs (price) | Intervention control | 57.22 57.81 | 20.8 13.04 | 64.28 60.16 | 10.09 14.55 | 0.01 0.46 | −7.05±18.66 −1.75±15.75 | −12.60 −6.48 | −1.51 2.3 |
| 0.80 | 0.12 | ||||||||
| Promotion channels | Intervention control | 26.87 28.73 | 20.16 9.80 | 65.99 29.68 | 15.60 14.03 | <0.001 0.75 | −39.13±21.8 −0.9±19.29 | −45.6 −6.75 | −32.65 4.84 |
| 0.67 | <0.001 | ||||||||
| Behavior | Intervention control | 62.17 63.52 | 14.9 6.1 | 70.9 64.2 | 11.86 9.2 | <0.001 0.75 | −8.73±14.73 −0.58±12.23 | −13.1 −4.26 | −4.34 3.08 |
| 0.50 | 0.003 | ||||||||
aSignificant, independent sample t test, bSignificant, paired sample t test
The results of the univariate analysis for the effects of the study intervention
| Group/variable | Intervention (mean±SD) | Control (mean±SD) | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | ||||
| Restrictive preferences (product) | 74.78±11.2 | 79.13±11.3 | 75.77±12.13 | 76.05±7.82 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| Readiness for paying the costs (price) | 57.22±20.8 | 64.28±10.09 | 57.81±13.04 | 60.16±14.55 | 0.05 | 0.004 | 0.01 |
| Promotion channels | 26.87±20.16 | 65.99±15.60 | 28.73±9.80 | 29.68±14.03 | <0.001 | 0.01 | 0.008 |
| Behavior | 62.17±14.9 | 70.9±11.86 | 63.52±6.1 | 64.2±9.2 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.04 |
Model No. 1: Raw model
Model No. 2: Modified for school type
Model No. 3: Adjusted for school type, age, educational background, parents’ occupation, parents’ education, income level, family members, and birth rank