- Email: [email protected]
P167 Exploring Cooking and Shopping Behaviors in Low-Income African American and Hispanic Participants
S108
Poster Abstracts
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 51, Number 7S, 2019
P166 (continued) more accurate recalls. The major barriers mentioned were lack of computer literacy of some participants and problems with internet connectivity. Conclusion: ASA24 may be comparable to the paper-andpencil recall in usability, confidence, perceived accuracy, and preference for both EFNEP participants and paraprofessionals. Qualitative analysis indicates that ASA24 may work better with participants who are computer literate, and may yield more accurate results. Funding: USDA.
P167 Exploring Cooking and Shopping Behaviors in Low-Income African American and Hispanic Participants Lauren Sweeney, MS, RDN, [email protected], University of Florida, 1408 Sabal Palm Dr, Gainesville, FL 32608; Kaley Mialki, MS, RDN, University of Florida; Elder Garcia, MA, MPA, University of Florida; Lisa House, PhD, University of Florida; Karla Shelnutt, PhD, RD, University of Florida Background: According to the USDA, 11.8% of US households were food insecure in 2017. The inability to access fresh, healthy food greatly affects diet quality and overall health. Grocery shopping habits, meal preparation methods, and frequency of eating away from home also affect diet quality. Objective: To qualitatively explore cooking and shopping behaviors of low-income African American (AA) and Hispanic participants to inform the development of interventions targeting these behaviors. Study Design, Settings, Participants: AA (n = 16) and Hispanic (14) participants who identified as the main food preparer in their household were recruited from lowincome neighborhoods in Gainesville and Hollywood, Florida. About half (47%) of Hispanic participants and 38% of AA participants reported currently receiving food assistance. Trained focus group moderators used a semistructured script to ask questions related to food shopping and preparation. Focus groups were conducted in English (n = 3) and Spanish (n = 3). Measurable Outcome/Analysis: Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using thematic analysis. Results: The number of weekday and weekend meals differed between AA and Hispanic participants. AA and Hispanic participants reported cooking on average two to three and five days per week, respectively. AA participants cooked more often on weekends. When grocery shopping, both groups consider cost the top factor influencing purchasing decisions. Food preference differed between groups, and even between participants within the Hispanic group, but most participants choose meals that feature familiar foods and take less than one hour to prepare. AA participants frequently reported time and money as barriers to cooking, whereas Hispanic participants did not report any barriers to cooking.
Conclusion: While there are many similarities between the cooking and shopping behaviors of AA and Hispanic participants, a number of cultural differences also exist. When designing interventions targeting grocery shopping, cooking, and eating behaviors, these cultural distinctions should be addressed, and adaptations should be made based on the target population. Funding: Self-funded.
P168 Farm to School Positions within State Agencies, Extension, and SNAP-Ed Programs Carol Smathers, MPH, MS, [email protected], Ohio State University Extension, 163 Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210; Lacy Stephens, MS, RDN, National Farm to School Network Background: Farm to school programs are a recommended strategy to improve dietary habits and nutrition. The National Farm to School Network (NFSN) prioritizes three state-level strategies to advance and institutionalize farm to school efforts: advocacy for farm to school policies, development of farm to school networks, and investments in farm to school positions at state agencies and in university Extension programs. Objective: To describe and quantify the current farm to school positions at state agencies and in university Extension and those related to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) programs. Study Design, Settings, Participants: Data about state-level farm to school positions were collected through surveys of NFSN Core and Supporting Partners conducted by NFSN between January-April 2018. The number of positions was reported, along with qualitative data (title, description, funding, duration, and agency/organization). Measurable Outcome/Analysis: NFSN partner organizations and agencies in all 50 states, Washington, DC, and US territories (n = 53) responded. Results were grouped by positions in state agencies and positions in university Extension programs. Results: There are 157 farm to school positions (parttime and full-time), with 98 in state agencies and 59 in university Extension. The majority of state agency positions are in departments of agriculture and departments of education. Positions based in departments of health, social services, and environment are less common. Although some are funded through legislation, in many cases they have come through administrative authority or amendments to an agency’s or university Extension program’s scope of work. Some positions are supported through state and federal grant funds. Three states reported a total of 12 positions connected with SNAP-Ed. Conclusion: State-level farm to school positions are integral to improving nutrition through advancing farm to school activities. Further study is needed to assess their purpose and effectiveness and the potential for similar positions in other states. Funding: Tides Center.
Poster Abstracts
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 51, Number 7S, 2019
P166 (continued) more accurate recalls. The major barriers mentioned were lack of computer literacy of some participants and problems with internet connectivity. Conclusion: ASA24 may be comparable to the paper-andpencil recall in usability, confidence, perceived accuracy, and preference for both EFNEP participants and paraprofessionals. Qualitative analysis indicates that ASA24 may work better with participants who are computer literate, and may yield more accurate results. Funding: USDA.
P167 Exploring Cooking and Shopping Behaviors in Low-Income African American and Hispanic Participants Lauren Sweeney, MS, RDN, [email protected], University of Florida, 1408 Sabal Palm Dr, Gainesville, FL 32608; Kaley Mialki, MS, RDN, University of Florida; Elder Garcia, MA, MPA, University of Florida; Lisa House, PhD, University of Florida; Karla Shelnutt, PhD, RD, University of Florida Background: According to the USDA, 11.8% of US households were food insecure in 2017. The inability to access fresh, healthy food greatly affects diet quality and overall health. Grocery shopping habits, meal preparation methods, and frequency of eating away from home also affect diet quality. Objective: To qualitatively explore cooking and shopping behaviors of low-income African American (AA) and Hispanic participants to inform the development of interventions targeting these behaviors. Study Design, Settings, Participants: AA (n = 16) and Hispanic (14) participants who identified as the main food preparer in their household were recruited from lowincome neighborhoods in Gainesville and Hollywood, Florida. About half (47%) of Hispanic participants and 38% of AA participants reported currently receiving food assistance. Trained focus group moderators used a semistructured script to ask questions related to food shopping and preparation. Focus groups were conducted in English (n = 3) and Spanish (n = 3). Measurable Outcome/Analysis: Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using thematic analysis. Results: The number of weekday and weekend meals differed between AA and Hispanic participants. AA and Hispanic participants reported cooking on average two to three and five days per week, respectively. AA participants cooked more often on weekends. When grocery shopping, both groups consider cost the top factor influencing purchasing decisions. Food preference differed between groups, and even between participants within the Hispanic group, but most participants choose meals that feature familiar foods and take less than one hour to prepare. AA participants frequently reported time and money as barriers to cooking, whereas Hispanic participants did not report any barriers to cooking.
Conclusion: While there are many similarities between the cooking and shopping behaviors of AA and Hispanic participants, a number of cultural differences also exist. When designing interventions targeting grocery shopping, cooking, and eating behaviors, these cultural distinctions should be addressed, and adaptations should be made based on the target population. Funding: Self-funded.
P168 Farm to School Positions within State Agencies, Extension, and SNAP-Ed Programs Carol Smathers, MPH, MS, [email protected], Ohio State University Extension, 163 Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210; Lacy Stephens, MS, RDN, National Farm to School Network Background: Farm to school programs are a recommended strategy to improve dietary habits and nutrition. The National Farm to School Network (NFSN) prioritizes three state-level strategies to advance and institutionalize farm to school efforts: advocacy for farm to school policies, development of farm to school networks, and investments in farm to school positions at state agencies and in university Extension programs. Objective: To describe and quantify the current farm to school positions at state agencies and in university Extension and those related to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) programs. Study Design, Settings, Participants: Data about state-level farm to school positions were collected through surveys of NFSN Core and Supporting Partners conducted by NFSN between January-April 2018. The number of positions was reported, along with qualitative data (title, description, funding, duration, and agency/organization). Measurable Outcome/Analysis: NFSN partner organizations and agencies in all 50 states, Washington, DC, and US territories (n = 53) responded. Results were grouped by positions in state agencies and positions in university Extension programs. Results: There are 157 farm to school positions (parttime and full-time), with 98 in state agencies and 59 in university Extension. The majority of state agency positions are in departments of agriculture and departments of education. Positions based in departments of health, social services, and environment are less common. Although some are funded through legislation, in many cases they have come through administrative authority or amendments to an agency’s or university Extension program’s scope of work. Some positions are supported through state and federal grant funds. Three states reported a total of 12 positions connected with SNAP-Ed. Conclusion: State-level farm to school positions are integral to improving nutrition through advancing farm to school activities. Further study is needed to assess their purpose and effectiveness and the potential for similar positions in other states. Funding: Tides Center.