2 results
A behavioural economics approach to improving healthy food selection among food pantry clients
- Caitlin E Caspi, Marna Canterbury, Samantha Carlson, Jamie Bain, Laura Bohen, Katherine Grannon, Hikaru Peterson, Thomas Kottke
-
- Journal:
- Public Health Nutrition / Volume 22 / Issue 12 / August 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 March 2019, pp. 2303-2313
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Objective
To test the effect of a behavioural economics intervention in two food pantries on the nutritional quality of foods available at the pantries and the foods selected by adults visiting food pantries.
DesignAn intervention (SuperShelf) was implemented in two food pantries (Sites A and B), with two other pantries (Sites C and D) serving as a control for pantry outcomes. The intervention aimed to increase the amount and variety of healthy foods (supply), as well as the appeal of healthy foods (demand) using behavioural economics strategies. Assessments included baseline and 4-month follow-up client surveys, client cart inventories, pantry inventories and environmental assessments. A fidelity score (range 0–100) was assigned to each intervention pantry to measure the degree of implementation. A Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-2010) score (range 0–100) was generated for each client cart and pantry.
SettingFour Minnesota food pantries, USA.
ParticipantsClients visiting intervention pantries before (n 71) and after (n 70) the intervention.
ResultsFidelity scores differed by intervention site (Site A=82, Site B=51). At Site A, in adjusted models, client cart HEI-2010 scores increased on average by 11·8 points (P<0·0001), whereas there was no change at Site B. HEI-2010 pantry environment scores increased in intervention pantries (Site A=8 points, Site B=19 points) and decreased slightly in control pantries (Site C=−4 points, Site D=−3 points).
ConclusionsWhen implemented as intended, SuperShelf has the potential to improve the nutritional quality of foods available to and selected by pantry clients.
2503 First year medical student characteristics associated with readiness to talk about race
- Brooke Cunningham, Rachel Hardeman, Samantha Carlson
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 November 2018, p. 56
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Calls to break the silence around the effects of racism on health are growing. Few researchers have examined the relationship between medical student characteristics and students’ comfort, motivation, and skill to discuss racism. This paper examines medical student characteristics associated with readiness to talk about racism among first-year medical students at the University of Minnesota. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: In February 2017 prior to a lecture on racism and health, we invited first year medical students to participate in a web-based survey about their experiences and comfort discussing racism. We calculated descriptive statistics and measured differences by student race (White vs. Asian vs. Black/multiracial/other) and undergraduate major type (STEM vs. non-STEM) using χ2 tests for variables with categorical responses and generalized linear regression models with pairwise comparisons (i.e., 2-sample t-tests) for variables with continuous responses. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: (n=107/163). The majority of students were male (53%); White (75%); and majored in STEM majors in college (85%). College major was not associated with race. Students’ responses to multiple items suggest that the vast majority perceived racial inequality as a major problem in the United States. Race was significantly associated with only 1 of these items. Specifically, 100% (16/16) of Black/multiracial/other students [under-represented minority (URM) students] reported “too little attention” is paid to race and racial issues, while only 53% of White students (42/79) and 55% of Asian students (6/11) chose this response. Students with non-STEM majors and students who identified as URM students reported talking about racism with friends more often than STEM majors and white students, respectively. In conversations about race at school, two-thirds of students were concerned that they might unintentionally offend others or be misunderstood. However, non-STEM majors and URM students were significantly less worried that they would unintentionally offend others in conversations about race at school than STEM majors and white students. Larger percentages of URM students (50%) than White students (25%) were afraid that others would not respect their views because of their race. White students were more afraid that they might that they would be called racist than URM students. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Many students find it challenging to discuss race and racism in medical education settings. URM students and non-STEM majors reported greater frequency talking about racism with friends and appear to be less anxious in conversations about racism than White students and STEM majors respectively. Given non-STEM majors' greater psychological safety discussing racism, future research should explore whether non-STEM majors are better prepared and more motivated to address racial disparities in health and health care than STEM majors. Such research could have important implications for medical school admissions.