跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT03566095
NCT03566095已完成不适用

Voices for Food: Utilizing Food Policy Councils to Bridge the Gap Between Food Security and Healthy Food Choices

South Dakota State University0 个研究点目标入组 1,735 人开始时间: 2014年8月1日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
入组人数
1,735
主要终点
The United States Household Food Security Survey Module

研究概览

简要总结

This study evaluates the effectiveness of coaching and Voices for Food materials on establishing Food Policy Councils (FPCs) and using guided client choice in rural food pantries to improve food security and diet quality among food pantry clients, and to improve the food environment in rural, midwestern food pantries. Half of the communities received coaching and the Voices for Food kit, the other half only received the Voices for Food kit.

详细描述

Community coaching is a a strategy that helps community leaders plan for and overcome challenges to community development. Interventions at the community level are most effective when they are conceived and led by locals. Community coaches can aid the local community in the development of FPCs in rural communities. FPCs have the potential to improve the nutritional quality of available food, and connect a diverse network of food system stakeholders from the public, private and nonprofit sectors, which includes local food pantries. Food pantry users are food insecure and avoid hunger by consuming low cost and shelf stable food items. Guided client choice is a system of distribution that can be employed in food pantries and supported by FPCs. Guided client-choice is a model of distribution in which pantry clients choose the foods they would like from the pantry based upon family size and is formatted based upon USDA MyPlate. Guided client choice has been shown to meet the needs of the pantry client base better than the traditional model of distribution often found in food pantries. Food pantries have the opportunity to meet the nutritional needs of the food insecure population.

Voices for Food is a multi-leveled socio-ecological, longitudinal, matched treatment and comparison study to develop food policy councils (FPCs), and improve food security and diet quality in rural communities. Voices for Food was conducted in 24 rural, high poverty counties in South Dakota, Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, Nebraska and Ohio. Counties were assigned to a treatment (n=12) or comparison (n=12) group.

Intervention activities focus on three key components that impact food security: 1) community coaching by Extension Educators/field staff, 2) FPC development, and 3) development of a MyChoice (guided client choice) food pantry. Community coaching, along with the Voices for Food kit was only provided to treatment counties. Comparison communities only received the Voices for Food kit. Evaluation components focus on three levels of the intervention: 1) Community (FPCs), 2) Food Pantry Organization and Food Environment, and 3) Pantry Client & Families. Participants in this study were community stakeholders, food pantry directors, staff/volunteers and food pantry clients. Pantry food access/availability including pantry food quality and quantity, household food security and pantry client dietary intake are dependent variables.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Non Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Treatment
盲法
Single (Participant)

盲法说明

Participants were not aware of their status as a treatment or comparison community.

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • Food Pantry Clients must be current clientele by visiting the participating food pantry at least once in the last year, English-speaking.
  • Food Pantry Directors must be 18 years or older (19 if in Nebraska), English-speaking and a director of a participating food pantry.
  • Food Pantry Staff/Volunteers must be 18 years or older (19 if in Nebraska), English-speaking and a staff/volunteer of a participating food pantry.
  • Community Stakeholders must be 18 years or older (19 if in Nebraska), English-speaking and reside in the participating community.

排除标准

  • Under 18 years old (19 if in Nebraska)
  • Non English- speaking

研究组 & 干预措施

Coaching and Voices for Food Kit

Active Comparator

The treatment communities received community coaching from an Extension Professional or Educator in the use of the Voices for Food kit.

干预措施: Coaching and Voices for Food Kit (Behavioral)

Voices for Food Kit

Sham Comparator

The comparison community received the Voices for Food kit.

干预措施: Voices for Food Kit (Behavioral)

结局指标

主要结局

The United States Household Food Security Survey Module

时间窗: 4 years

Change in food security of food pantry clients. Individuals will be classified as very low food secure, low food secure, marginal food secure and high food secure.

Healthy Eating Index (HEI) Score

时间窗: 4 years

Change in diet quality of food pantry clients. The Automated Self-Administered 24-hour (ASA24®) Dietary Assessment Too allows for calculation of the Healthy Eating Index score, which is a measure of diet quality.

次要结局

  • Food Pantry MyChoice Observation Tool(4 years)
  • Food Policy Council Implementation Form(4 years)

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor

相似试验