Acceptability of Pilot School-based Food Pantries Compared With Weekend Feeding BackPack Programs Among Food Pantry Clients in Rural Tennessee: A Mixed-Methods Approach.

IF 2.3 3区医学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1016/j.jneb.2024.09.002

Marissa McElrone, Kimberly Osment, Emory Evans, Shelby Gillian

{"title":"Acceptability of Pilot School-based Food Pantries Compared With Weekend Feeding BackPack Programs Among Food Pantry Clients in Rural Tennessee: A Mixed-Methods Approach.","authors":"Marissa McElrone, Kimberly Osment, Emory Evans, Shelby Gillian","doi":"10.1016/j.jneb.2024.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To explore the client acceptability and perceived impact of pilot school-based food pantries (SBFPs) and compare client preference between SBFPs and BackPack programs (locally termed Sack Pack) in 3 rural Tennessee elementary schools.Methods: A mixed-method design, including cross-sectional surveys (n = 25) and semistructured interviews (n = 11), was used to assess and compare program acceptability.Results: Client satisfaction was uniformly positive for both programs; however, a majority preferred the food quantity (84%), nutritional value (76%), variety (68%), quality (68%), and convenience (64%) of SBFPs. Clients reported feeding more household members with SBFPs (3.9 ± 0.9 vs 3.0 ± 1.0) compared with Sack Pack. When exploring SBFPs vs Sack Pack, 3 primary themes emerged from interviews and were supported by survey data: preferences for different program elements; food acceptability; and SBFP impact and expansion.Conclusions and implications: Findings support continuing SBFPs in rural schools. Studies on expanding the use of trusted and accessible schools as potential healthful food distribution sites are warranted to support broader community food access in rural areas.","PeriodicalId":50107,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2024.09.002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To explore the client acceptability and perceived impact of pilot school-based food pantries (SBFPs) and compare client preference between SBFPs and BackPack programs (locally termed Sack Pack) in 3 rural Tennessee elementary schools.

Methods: A mixed-method design, including cross-sectional surveys (n = 25) and semistructured interviews (n = 11), was used to assess and compare program acceptability.

Results: Client satisfaction was uniformly positive for both programs; however, a majority preferred the food quantity (84%), nutritional value (76%), variety (68%), quality (68%), and convenience (64%) of SBFPs. Clients reported feeding more household members with SBFPs (3.9 ± 0.9 vs 3.0 ± 1.0) compared with Sack Pack. When exploring SBFPs vs Sack Pack, 3 primary themes emerged from interviews and were supported by survey data: preferences for different program elements; food acceptability; and SBFP impact and expansion.

Conclusions and implications: Findings support continuing SBFPs in rural schools. Studies on expanding the use of trusted and accessible schools as potential healthful food distribution sites are warranted to support broader community food access in rural areas.

查看原文本刊更多论文

田纳西州农村地区食品储藏室客户对校内食品储藏室试点与周末喂养背包计划的接受程度比较：混合方法。

目的在田纳西州的 3 所农村小学探索试点校内食品储藏室 (SBFP) 的客户接受度和感知影响，并比较客户对 SBFP 和 BackPack 计划（当地称为 Sack Pack）的偏好：方法：采用混合方法设计，包括横截面调查（n = 25）和半结构式访谈（n = 11），以评估和比较计划的可接受性：结果：客户对两个计划的满意度都很高；然而，大多数客户更喜欢 SBFPs 的食物数量（84%）、营养价值（76%）、种类（68%）、质量（68%）和便利性（64%）。与 "麻袋包 "相比，服务对象表示使用 "小包装食品"（3.9 ± 0.9 vs 3.0 ± 1.0）喂养的家庭成员更多。在探讨 SBFPs 与 Sack Pack 的对比时，访谈中出现了 3 个主要的主题，并得到了调查数据的支持：对不同计划要素的偏好；食物的可接受性；以及 SBFP 的影响和扩展：调查结果支持在农村学校继续实施 SBFP。为支持农村地区更广泛的社区食物获取，有必要研究如何扩大使用可信赖且容易到达的学校作为潜在的健康食物分发场所。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 医学-学科教育

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

11.50%

发文量

379

审稿时长

44 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior (JNEB), the official journal of the Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior, is a refereed, scientific periodical that serves as a global resource for all professionals with an interest in nutrition education; nutrition and physical activity behavior theories and intervention outcomes; complementary and alternative medicine related to nutrition behaviors; food environment; food, nutrition, and physical activity communication strategies including technology; nutrition-related economics; food safety education; and scholarship of learning related to these areas. The purpose of JNEB is to document and disseminate original research and emerging issues and practices relevant to these areas worldwide. The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior welcomes evidence-based manuscripts that provide new insights and useful findings related to nutrition education research, practice and policy. The content areas of JNEB reflect the diverse interests in nutrition and physical activity related to public health, nutritional sciences, education, behavioral economics, family and consumer sciences, and eHealth, including the interests of community-based nutrition-practitioners. As the Society''s official journal, JNEB also includes policy statements, issue perspectives, position papers, and member communications.