![]() No or minimal changes in customer behaviors were observed after a 10-month implementation period. Food environment scores decreased slightly in both communities. Restaurant food environment scores improved from 13.4 to 24.1 (p < 0.01) in the intervention community and did not change significantly in the control community. The intervention reached 60% of customers in participating food outlets. One month after the end of the pilot implementation period, 5.4 (SD=1.6) and 7.5 (SD=0.7) activities were still in place at restaurants and food stores, respectively. On average, 6.3 (SD=1.1) out of 10 possible intervention activities were implemented in restaurants and 9.0 (SD=0.0) out of 12 possible activities were implemented in food stores. On a 0-4 scale, the average level of satisfaction with WES was 3.14 (SD=0.69) for restaurant managers and 3 (SD=0.0) for store managers. Seven of nine restaurants and two of three food stores invited to participate in WES adopted the intervention. The RE-AIM framework was used to guide the evaluation and organize the results. We collected process and outcome data using baseline and posttest owner and customer surveys and direct observation methods. communities randomly assigned to serve as intervention or control site. ![]() We conducted a randomized community trial, with two Midwestern U.S. ![]() WES focused on labeling, promoting, and increasing the availability of healthy foods. We tested “Waupaca Eating Smart ” (WES), a pilot intervention to improve the food environment and promote healthy eating in restaurants and supermarkets of a rural community. To date, little is known about effective interventions to improve the food environment of restaurants and food stores and promote healthy eating in rural communities. Research suggests that the food environment influences individual eating practices.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |