Daily distribution of free healthy school meals or food-voucher intervention? Perceptions and attitudes of parents and educators
Daily distribution of free healthy school meals or food-voucher intervention? Perceptions and attitudes of parents and educators
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.025
复制
发表时间：
2018-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Linos, Athena
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dalma, Archontoula;Zota, Dina;Linos, Athena
目的：定性评估最佳干预措施（食品券的方法与免费每日膳食分配），旨在减少粮食不安全和促进健康饮食的学生就读于公立学校在社会经济条件差的地区。方法：我们随机分配34所学校的两个干预措施之一：17所学校的学生每天都收到一个饭盒，其他17所学校的家长每月一次收到等值的食品券。所有学生都有机会参加。我们在所有参与学校进行了30个焦点小组（17个在膳食分配方面，13个在食物券学校）。合格的参与者包括家长（n = 106），教育工作者（n = 66）和学校校长（n = 34）。我们定性评估他们的看法和态度对program.Results：重要的差异观察到两种方法之间，更有利的看法被报道的膳食分配方法。更具体地说，社会污名化最小化的膳食分配的方法，通过所有学生的参与，与食品券的参与者报告的尴尬和害怕污名化的感觉。第二，膳食分配办法通过提供每日膳食缓解了儿童的粮食不安全状况，而食品券干预措施则有助于管理家庭粮食不安全状况，因为食品券主要用于购买家庭膳食食品。此外，教育和经验性质的膳食分配的方法加强了健康饮食的促进，而食品券干预是有效的，主要是自觉的父母关于健康饮食。结论：膳食分配干预被认为是更有效的比食品券之一。因此，对于旨在解决儿童和青少年粮食不安全问题的干预措施，公共卫生的重点可以转向以学校为基础的实物粮食援助。(C)2017爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有
Aims: To qualitatively evaluate the optimal intervention (food-voucher approach vs. free daily meal distribution), aimed at reducing food insecurity and promoting healthy eating among students attending public schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.Methods: We randomly assigned 34 schools to one of the two interventions: students in 17 schools received a daily lunch-box and parents in the other 17 schools received a food voucher of equal value once a month. All students were offered the opportunity to participate. We conducted 30 focus groups in all participating schools (17 in the meal distribution and 13 in the food voucher schools). Eligible participants included parents (n = 106), educators (n = 66) and school principals (n = 34). We qualitatively evaluated their perceptions and attitudes towards the program.Results: Important differences were observed between the two approaches, with more favourable perceptions being reported for the meal distribution approach. More specifically, social stigmatization was minimized in the meal distribution approach, through the participation of all students, compared with the food-voucher participants who reported feelings of embarrassment and fear of stigmatization. Secondly, the meal distribution approach alleviated child food insecurity through the provision of the daily meal, while the food-voucher intervention helped manage household food insecurity, as vouchers were mainly used for purchasing food for family meals. Furthermore, the educational and experiential nature of the meal distribution approach intensified healthy eating promotion, while the food-voucher intervention was efficient mainly for conscious parents regarding healthy eating.Conclusions: The meal distribution intervention was considered more effective than the food-voucher one. Hence, for interventions aiming at tackling food insecurity of children and adolescents, public health focus could be oriented towards school-based in kind food assistance. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.