Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption through worksites and families in the treatwell 5-a-day study

G Sorensen, A Stoddard, K Peterson, N Cohen, M K Hunt, E Stein, R Palombo, R Lederman, G Sorensen, A Stoddard, K Peterson, N Cohen, M K Hunt, E Stein, R Palombo, R Lederman

Abstract

Objectives: We report on the results of the Treatwell 5-a-Day study, a worksite intervention aimed at increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables.

Methods: Twenty-two worksites were randomly assigned to 3 groups: (1) a minimal intervention control group, (2) a worksite intervention, and (3) a worksite-plus-family intervention. The interventions used community-organizing strategies and were structured to target multiple levels of influence, following a socioecological model. Data were collected by self-administered employee surveys before and after the intervention; the response rate was 87% (n = 1359) at baseline and 76% (n = 1306) at follow-up. A process tracking system was used to document intervention delivery.

Results: After control for worksite, gender, education, occupation, race/ethnicity, and living situation, total fruit and vegetable intake increased by 19% in the worksite-plus-family group, 7% in the worksite intervention group and 0% in the control group (P = .05). These changes reflect a one half serving increase among workers in the worksite-plus-family group compared with the control group (P = .018).

Conclusions: The worksite-plus-family intervention was more successful in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption than was the worksite intervention. Worksite interventions involving family members appear to be a promising strategy for influencing workers' dietary habits.

References

    1. Am J Health Promot. 1992 Jul-Aug;6(6):443-50, 464
    1. Am J Health Promot. 1995 May-Jun;9(5):352-60
    1. Am J Health Promot. 1995 Sep-Oct;10(1):55-62
    1. Am J Health Promot. 1996 Mar-Apr;10(4):270-81
    1. Am J Health Promot. 1996 Jan-Feb;10(3):217-25
    1. Am J Health Promot. 1996 Jul-Aug;10(6):436-52
    1. Am J Health Promot. 1996 Jul-Aug;10(6):453-70
    1. Am J Public Health. 1992 Jun;82(6):877-80
    1. Child Dev. 1992 Oct;63(5):1043-69
    1. J Am Diet Assoc. 1992 Aug;92(8):963-8
    1. Cancer Causes Control. 1991 Nov;2(6):427-42
    1. Cancer Causes Control. 1991 Sep;2(5):325-57
    1. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Jan;53(1 Suppl):251S-259S
    1. Nutr Rev. 1990 May;48(5):201-11
    1. J Am Diet Assoc. 1990 Oct;90(10):1408-14, 1017
    1. Am J Public Health. 1990 Dec;80(12):1443-9
    1. Health Educ Q. 1989 Spring;16(1):31-43
    1. Prev Med. 1989 Jul;18(4):475-91
    1. Health Educ Q. 1989 Summer;16(2):171-80
    1. Am J Public Health. 1989 Jan;79(1):16-20
    1. Health Educ Q. 1988 Winter;15(4):351-77
    1. Health Educ Q. 1988 Winter;15(4):395-415
    1. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1987 Feb;55(1):91-5
    1. J Occup Med. 1986 May;28(5):360-4
    1. Soc Sci Med. 1986;22(9):915-27
    1. Int J Epidemiol. 1985 Mar;14(1):32-8
    1. Am J Epidemiol. 1985 Jul;122(1):51-65
    1. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1977 Winter;1(4):471-98
    1. J Am Diet Assoc. 1983 Nov;83(5):555-60
    1. J Am Diet Assoc. 1980 Jul;77(1):31-41
    1. Am J Public Health. 1995 Dec;85(12):1623-9
    1. Am J Public Health. 1995 Feb;85(2):236-9
    1. Science. 1994 Apr 22;264(5158):532-7
    1. J Am Diet Assoc. 1994 Jan;94(1):32-6
    1. Epidemiology. 1993 Sep;4(5):455-63
    1. Am J Public Health. 1996 Jul;86(7):939-47
    1. Health Educ Q. 1996 May;23(2):137-58
    1. Prev Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;25(4):455-64
    1. Circulation. 1997 Jan 7;95(1):24-30
    1. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:379-416

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever