How do we actually put smarter snacks in schools? NOURISH (Nutrition Opportunities to Understand Reforms Involving Student Health) conversations with food-service directors.

OBJECTIVE: In autumn 2012, Massachusetts schools implemented comprehensive competitive food and beverage standards similar to the US Department of Agriculture's Smart Snacks in School standards. We explored major themes raised by food-service directors (FSD) regarding their school-district-wide implementation of the standards. DESIGN: For this qualitative study, part of a larger mixed-methods study, compliance was measured via direct observation of foods and beverages during school site visits in spring 2013 and 2014, calculated to ascertain the percentage of compliant products available to students. Semi-structured interviews with school FSD conducted in each year were analysed for major implementation themes; those raised by more than two-thirds of participating school districts were explored in relationship to compliance. SETTING: Massachusetts school districts (2013: n 26; 2014: n 21). SUBJECTS: Data collected from FSD. RESULTS: Seven major themes were raised by more than two-thirds of participating school districts (range 69-100 %): taking measures for successful transition; communicating with vendors/manufacturers; using tools to identify compliant foods and beverages; receiving support from leadership; grappling with issues not covered by the law; anticipating changes in sales of competitive foods and beverages; and anticipating changes in sales of school meals. Each theme was mentioned by the majority of more-compliant school districts (65-81 %), with themes being raised more frequently after the second year of implementation (range increase 4-14 %). CONCLUSIONS: FSD in more-compliant districts were more likely to talk about themes than those in less-compliant districts. Identified themes suggest best-practice recommendations likely useful for school districts implementing the final Smart Snacks in School standards, effective July 2016.

Future directions in research on institutional and interpersonal discrimination and children's health.

Research evidence indicates that 2 forms of racial discrimination-perceived interpersonal discrimination and racial/ethnic residential segregation (a form of institutional discrimination)-may influence children's health and disparities. Although research on these 2 forms of discrimination and health has primarily focused on adults, smaller bodies of work have documented that perceived interpersonal discrimination and segregation have a negative effect on infants' health, and that perceived interpersonal discrimination may negatively affect children's mental health. Three directions for research are (1) incorporating a life-course perspective into studies of discrimination and children's health, (2) linking residential segregation with geography-of-opportunity conceptual frameworks and measures, and (3) considering residential segregation along with segregation in other contexts that influence children's health (e.g., schools).

Organizational Health Literacy as a Tool for Health Equity: Application in a High-Risk Infant Follow-Up Program.

BACKGROUND: Healthy People 2030 emphasizes personal health literacy (individual skills) and organizational health literacy-the degree to which organizations equitably enable individuals to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others. However, research on the latter is in the early stages. METHODS: This study describes an organizational health literacy assessment in a U.S. urban academic children's hospital. A variety of evidence-based health literacy assessments were used to assess patient information materials and the environment, including institutional practices, navigation, culture and language, and communication. Trained interviewers and analysts reached consensus for all assessments. RESULTS: Information Items: SMOG scores (n = 9) ranged from 7th- to 14th-grade reading level (average = 11.3). PEMAT-P scores (n = 9) ranged from 43.8% to 93.8% understandability and 0% to 80% actionability. CDC CCI scores (literacy demand) (n = 6) ranged from 18.2% to 58.8% (≥90% = excellent). SAM scores (suitability) (n = 6) fell in the "adequate" range (43.2-58.3%). The PMOSE/IKIRSCH scores (complexity) (n = 3) noted low-moderate difficulty. Apter's Hierarchy (n = 4) revealed three numeracy domains (50% = descriptive purposes and decision-making, 100% = interpreting information). Organization-level: Walking interviews highlighted organizational facilitators and barriers related to the pre-visit and visit environments. HLE2 domain scores ranged from 52% to 68%. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational health literacy demands far outweigh the average literacy skills of adults in the U.S. (patients and staff). Findings can be used to hone quality improvement and other processes to focus on structural solutions to increase health equity.

Participation in a national diagnostic research study: assessing the patient experience.

INTRODUCTION: The Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN), a clinical research study funded by the National Institutes of Health, aims to provide answers for patients with undiagnosed conditions and generate knowledge about underlying disease mechanisms. UDN evaluations involve collaboration between clinicians and researchers and go beyond what is possible in clinical settings. While medical and research outcomes of UDN evaluations have been explored, this is the first formal assessment of the patient and caregiver experience. METHODS: We invited UDN participants and caregivers to participate in focus groups via email, newsletter, and a private participant Facebook group. We developed focus group questions based on research team expertise, literature focused on patients with rare and undiagnosed conditions, and UDN participant and family member feedback. In March 2021, we conducted, recorded, and transcribed four 60-min focus groups via Zoom. Transcripts were evaluated using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The adult undiagnosed focus group described the UDN evaluation as validating and an avenue for access to medical providers. They also noted that the experience impacted professional choices and helped them rely on others for support. The adult diagnosed focus group described the healthcare system as not set up for rare disease. In the pediatric undiagnosed focus group, caregivers discussed a continued desire for information and gratitude for the UDN evaluation. They also described an ability to rule out information and coming to terms with not having answers. The pediatric diagnosed focus group discussed how the experience helped them focus on management and improved communication. Across focus groups, adults (undiagnosed/diagnosed) noted the comprehensiveness of the evaluation. Undiagnosed focus groups (adult/pediatric) discussed a desire for ongoing communication and care with the UDN. Diagnosed focus groups (adult/pediatric) highlighted the importance of the diagnosis they received in the UDN. The majority of the focus groups noted a positive future orientation after participation. CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with prior literature focused on the patient experience of rare and undiagnosed conditions and highlight benefits from comprehensive evaluations, regardless of whether a diagnosis is obtained. Focus group themes also suggest areas for improvement and future research related to the diagnostic odyssey.