Nutrition Research and Practice

The Korean Nutrition Society (한국영양학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Student feedback to improve the United States Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

  • Lin, Yi-Chun (School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington) ;
  • Fly, Alyce D. (School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington)
  • Received : 2015.08.25
  • Accepted : 2016.01.23
  • Published : 2016.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Fruit and vegetable consumption of children in the United States falls below recommendations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) is a national free-fruit and vegetable school distribution program designed to address this problem. This permanent, legislated program provides funding to qualified elementary schools for provision of additional fruit and vegetables outside of school meals. The objective of this study was to understand children's perceptions of FFVP after the intervention and formulate recommendations that may improve success of the intervention. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Secondary data were obtained from 5,265 $4^{th}-6^{th}$ graders at 51 randomly-selected FFVP intervention schools in Indiana. Anonymous questionnaires were completed late in the 2011-2012 academic year. Multilevel logistic regressions were used to determine associations between students' perceptions of program effects (4 close-ended items) and their preference toward the program. Content analysis was applied to a single open-ended item for program comments. RESULTS: Over 47% of students reported greater intake of fruit and vegetables due to FFVP, and over 66% reported liking the program. Student-reported program effects were positively associated with preference for the program (P < 0.01). Themes that emerged during analysis of 3,811 comments, included, students liked: the opportunity to try different kinds of fruit and vegetables, types and flavors of fruits served, and benefits of eating fruit. Fewer students liked the types of vegetables and their benefits. A small group disliked the program citing poor flavor of vegetables and quality of fruits. Important suggestions for the program include serving more dipping sauces for vegetables, cooking vegetables, and providing a greater variety of produce. CONCLUSIONS: The degree that students liked FFVP may predict the program's effects on fruit and vegetable intake. FFVP may become more acceptable to students by incorporating their suggestions. Program planners should consider these options for achieving program goals.

Keywords

References

  1. Krebs-Smith SM, Guenther PM, Subar AF, Kirkpatrick SI, Dodd KW. Americans do not meet federal dietary recommendations. J Nutr 2010;140:1832-8. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.110.124826
  2. National Cancer Institute (US). Usual dietary intakes: food intakes, US Population, 2007-10 [Internet]. Rockville (MA): National Cancer Institute; 2014 [cited 2016 January 3]. Available from: http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/diet/usualintakes/pop/2007-10/.
  3. Lorson BA, Melgar-Quinonez HR, Taylor CA. Correlates of fruit and vegetable intakes in US children. J Am Diet Assoc 2009;109:474-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2008.11.022
  4. Evans CE, Christian MS, Cleghorn CL, Greenwood DC, Cade JE. Systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based interventions to improve daily fruit and vegetable intake in children aged 5 to 12 y. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;96:889-901. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.030270
  5. French SA, Stables G. Environmental interventions to promote vegetable and fruit consumption among youth in school settings. Prev Med 2003;37:593-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.09.007
  6. Delgado-Noguera M, Tort S, Martinez-Zapata MJ, Bonfill X. Primary school interventions to promote fruit and vegetable consumption: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med 2011;53:3-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.04.016
  7. Bartlett S, Olsho L, Klerman J, Patlan KL, Blocklin M, Connor P. Evaluation of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP): Final Evaluation Report. Alexandria (VA): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; 2013.
  8. Bere E, Veierod MB, Skare O, Klepp KI. Free School Fruit--sustained effect three years later. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2007;4:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-4-5
  9. Buzby JC, Guthrie JF, Kantor LS. Evaluation of the USDA fruit and vegetable pilot program: report to congress [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2003 [cited 2016 January 3]. Available from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/FV030063.pdf.
  10. Olsho LE, Klerman JA, Ritchie L, Wakimoto P, Webb KL, Bartlett S. Increasing child fruit and vegetable intake: findings from the US Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015;115:1283-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2014.12.026
  11. Tak NI, Te Velde SJ, Singh AS, Brug J. The effects of a fruit and vegetable promotion intervention on unhealthy snacks during mid-morning school breaks: results of the Dutch Schoolgruiten Project. J Hum Nutr Diet 2010;23:609-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2010.01090.x
  12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program: a handbook for schools [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; 2010 [cited 2016 January 3]. Available from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/handbook.pdf.
  13. Hayes D, Berdan G. School nutrition programs: challenges and opportunities. Am J Lifestyle Med 2013;7:330-40.
  14. Ohri-Vachaspati P, Turner L, Chaloupka FJ. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program participation in elementary schools in the United States and availability of fruits and vegetables in school lunch meals. J Acad Nutr Diet 2012;112:921-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2012.02.025
  15. Lin YC, Foland E, Bai Y, Fly AD. Indiana students in the 2010-11 USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) increased variety of fruits and vegetables consumed and requests to parents to purchase fruits and vegetables through mediating changes in intention and attitude. FASEB J 2013;27:626.7.
  16. Coyle KK, Potter S, Schneider D, May G, Robin LE, Seymour J, Debrot K. Distributing free fresh fruit and vegetables at school: results of a pilot outcome evaluation. Public Health Rep 2009.124:660-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490912400508
  17. Jamelske EM, Bica LA. Impact of the USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program on children's consumption. J Child Nutr Manag 2012;36.
  18. Bica LA, Jamelske EM. USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program creates positive change in children's consumption and other behaviors related to eating fruit and vegetables. J Child Nutr Manag 2012;36.
  19. Jamelske E, Bica LA, McCarty DJ, Meinen A. Preliminary findings from an evaluation of the USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program in Wisconsin schools. WMJ 2008.107:225-30. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1069905
  20. Shertzer JA. Introducing children to fresh fruits and vegetables in the classroom: Identifying features that may affect outcomes of the USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Ann Arbor (MI): ProQuest LLC; 2008.
  21. Huang L, Lin YC, Foland E, Bai Y, Liu Y, Fly AD. 2010-2011 USDA fresh fruit and vegetable program (FFVP) improved Indiana elementary students' consumption of fruit. FASEB J 2013;27:1063.5.
  22. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15:1277-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  23. Swift JA, Tischler V. Qualitative research in nutrition and dietetics: getting started. J Hum Nutr Diet 2010;23:559-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2010.01116.x
  24. Jenkins KR, Fakhoury N, Marzec ML, Harlow-Rosentraub KS. Perceptions of a culture of health: implications for communications and programming. Health Promot Pract 2015;16:796-804. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839914559942
  25. Erickson PI, Kaplan CP. Maximizing qualitative responses about smoking in structured interviews. Qual Health Res 2000;10:829-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118859
  26. Mossholder KW, Settoon RP, Harris SG, Armenakis AA. Measuring emotion in open-ended survey responses: an application of textual data analysis. J Manage 1995;21:335-55.
  27. Indiana Department of Education. COMPASS: school and corporation data [Internet]. Indianapolis (IN): Indiana Department of Education; [cited 2015 June 25]. Available from: http://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/overview.aspx.
  28. Kondracki NL, Wellman NS, Amundson DR. Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. J Nutr Educ Behav 2002;34:224-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60097-3
  29. QSR International Pty Ltd. Qualitative data analysis software NVivo 10 [Computer software] [Internet]. [place unknown]: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2012 [cited 2015 July 19]. Available from: http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx.
  30. IBM. SPSS statistics 22.0 [Computer software] [Internet]. [place unknown]: IBM; 2013 [cited 2015 July 19]. Available from: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21646821.
  31. Potter SC, Schneider D, Coyle KK, May G, Robin L, Seymour J. What works? Process evaluation of a school-based fruit and vegetable distribution program in Mississippi. J Sch Health 2011;81:202-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00580.x
  32. Bai Y, Feldman C, Wunderlich SM, Aletras SC. Process evaluation of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program implementation in a New Jersey elementary school. J Child Nutr Manag 2011;35.

Cited by

  1. Agent-based modeling insights into the optimal distribution of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program vol.20, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101173