domingo, 6 de abril de 2014

Preventing Chronic Disease | Engaging the Community to Improve Nutrition and Physical Activity Among Houses of Worship - CDC

full-text ►

Preventing Chronic Disease | Engaging the Community to Improve Nutrition and Physical Activity Among Houses of Worship - CDC



Preventing Chronic Disease Logo

Image of eCard



Engaging the Community to Improve Nutrition and Physical Activity Among Houses of Worship

Kiameesha R. Evans, MPH, MCHES; Shawna V. Hudson, PhD

Suggested citation for this article: Evans KR, Hudson SV. Engaging the Community to Improve Nutrition and Physical Activity Among Houses of Worship. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:130270. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.130270External Web Site Icon.
PEER REVIEWED

Abstract

Background
Obesity, physical inactivity, and poor nutrition have been linked to many chronic diseases. Research indicates that interventions in community-based settings such as houses of worship can build on attendees’ trust to address health issues and help them make behavioral changes.
Community Context
New Brunswick, New Jersey, has low rates of physical activity and a high prevalence of obesity. An adapted community-based intervention was implemented there to improve nutrition and physical activity among people who attend houses of worship and expand and enhance the network of partners working with Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey.
Methods
An adapted version of Body & Soul: A Celebration of Healthy Living and Eating was created using a 3-phase model to 1) educate lay members on nutrition and physical activity, 2) provide sustainable change through the development of physical activity programming, and 3) increase access to local produce through collaborations with community partners.
Outcome
Nineteen houses of worship were selected for participation in this program. Houses of worship provided a questionnaire to a convenience sample of its congregation to assess congregants’ physical activity levels and produce consumption behaviors at baseline using questions from the Health Information National Trends Survey instrument. This information was also used to inform future program activities.
Interpretation
Community-based health education can be a promising approach when appropriate partnerships are identified, funding is adequate, ongoing information is extracted to inform future action, and there is an expectation from all parties of long-term engagement and capacity building.

Author Information

Corresponding Author: Kiameesha R. Evans, MPH, MCHES, Program Director, Office of Community Outreach, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany St, Room 5533, New Brunswick, NJ 08901. Telephone: 732-235-9884. E-mail:evanskr@cinj.rutgers.edu.
Author Affiliation: Shawna V. Hudson, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

References

  1. US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. Washington (DC): US Government Printing Office; 2010.
  2. Cancer prevention and early detection facts and figures 2013. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society; 2013.
  3. Policy and action for cancer prevention: food, nutrition, and physical activity: a global perspective. Washington (DC): World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research; 2009.
  4. Kushi LH, Doyle C, McCullough M, Rock CL, Demark-Wahnefried W, Bandera EV, et al. American Cancer Society Guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62(1):30–67.CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  5. Campbell MK, Hudson MA, Resnicow K, Blakeney N, Paxton A, Baskin M. Church-based health interventions: evidence and lessons learned. Annu Rev Public Health 2007;28:213–34. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  6. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System public use data tape 2011. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 2012.
  7. County health rankings and roadmaps 2012: a healthier nation, county by county. University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. http://www.countyhealthrankings.org. Accessed July 4, 2013.
  8. Campbell MK, Demark-Wahnefried W, Symons M, Kalsbeek WD, Dodds J, Cowan A, et al. Fruit and vegetable consumption and prevention of cancer: the Black Churches United for Better Health project. Am J Public Health 1999;89(9):1390–6. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  9. Campbell MK, Motsinger BM, Ingram A, Jewell D, Makarushka C, Beatty B, et al. The North Carolina Black Churches United for Better Health Project: intervention and process evaluation. Health Educ Behav 2000;27(2):241–53. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  10. Resnicow K, Jackson A, Wang T, De AK, McCarty F, Dudley WN, et al. A motivational interviewing intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intake through black churches: results of the Eat for Life trial. Am J Public Health 2001;91(10):1686–93. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  11. Resnicow K, Wallace DC, Jackson A, Digirolamo A, Odom E, Wang T, et al. Dietary change through African American churches: baseline results and program description of the Eat for Life trial. J Cancer Educ 2000;15(3):156–63. PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  12. Resnicow K, Jackson A, Blissett D, Wang T, McCarty F, Rahotep S, et al. Results of the healthy body healthy spirit trial. Health Psychol 205;24(4):339-48.
  13. Baruth M, Wilcox S, Laken M, Bopp M, Saunders R. Implementation of a faith-based physical activity intervention: insights from church health directors. J Community Health 2008;33(5):304–12. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  14. Bopp M, Wilcox S, Laken M, Hooker SP, Saunders R, Parra-Medina D, et al. Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate a physical activity intervention in churches. Prev Chronic Dis 2007;4(4):A87. PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  15. Research to Reality. National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health. https://researchtoreality.cancer.gov/. Accessed July 3, 2013.
  16. Health Information National Trends Survey 3. Washington (DC): National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health; 2007.
  17. Allicock M, Campbell MK, Valle CG, Carr C, Resnicow K, Gizlice Z. Evaluating the dissemination of Body & Soul, an evidence-based fruit and vegetable intake intervention: challenges for dissemination and implementation research. J Nutr Educ Behav 2012;44(6):530–8. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  18. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol 2008;41(3-4):327–50. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  19. Demark-Wahnefried W, McClelland JW, Jackson B, Campbell MK, Cowan A, Hoben K, et al. Partnering with African American churches to achieve better health: lessons learned during the Black Churches United for Better Health 5 a day project. J Cancer Educ 2000;15(3):164–7. PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  20. Baskin ML, Resnicow K, Campbell MK. Conducting health interventions in black churches: a model for building effective partnerships. Ethn Dis 2001;11(4):823–33. PubMedExternal Web Site Icon

No hay comentarios: