Healthy Eating Value Systems Among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participants: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how families receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) conceptualize healthy eating and its relationship to child development. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of in-depth, in-home qualitative interviews. 30 caregivers with children between the ages of 4 and 10 years old participating in SNAP in Baltimore, MD, were asked about food purchasing resources and strategies. Two independent coders re-analyzed primary data using an iterative process to identify a priori themes related to caregivers' conceptualization of healthy eating and emergent themes related to the ways families use SNAP benefits. Themes were identified via content analysis and revised until consensus was reached. RESULTS: Participants demonstrated knowledge of nutritious food groups, specific unhealthy nutrients, and the importance of food in managing chronic conditions. However, the importance of nutrition was balanced with the need for ready-made foods that children could safely prepare on their own, shelf stable goods, and low-cost foods. Emergent themes identified caregivers' views of health-related impacts of food beyond nutrition, including the role of food as: a parenting tool to support child socialization and development, a means of creating experiences unique to childhood, and a mechanism for promoting family cohesion. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests families receiving SNAP use benefits to best serve children's well-being while conceptualizing the child health benefits of food as extending beyond nutrition. Future policy interventions aimed at optimizing SNAP should address the potential for nutrition assistance to foster positive child social and emotional development among low-income families while meeting nutritional needs.

Understanding caregiver acceptance of screening for family substance use in pediatric clinics serving economically disadvantaged children.

Background: Children of parents with substance use disorders are at greater risk for mental and physical health co-morbidities. Despite guidelines, pediatricians rarely screen for substance use in the family/household, citing fear of offending parents. The objectives of this study were to examine (1) caregiver acceptance of pediatricians screening for family/household substance use during well-child visits, (2) prevalence of family/household substance use, and (3) the association between family/household substance use and trust in their child's pediatrician. Methods: This cross-sectional study surveyed adult caregivers presenting a child for medical care at two urban pediatric outpatient clinics using a brief anonymous computer-based survey. The primary outcome measured the acceptability of pediatrician screening for family/household substance use. Substance use and concerns about use in the family/household were also assessed. Results: Adult caregivers (n = 271) surveyed were mean age 35 years, 73% mothers, 90% African American, and 85% on Medicaid. Over half (51%) of caregivers reported substance use by someone in the family/household, most commonly cigarettes (38%), followed by alcohol (19%) and marijuana (10%). Sixty-one percent of caregivers who reported family substance use expressed concern about the use of this substance. The majority (87%) agreed it is appropriate for pediatricians to ask caregivers about family/household substance use. No differences were found between caregivers who did and did not report substance use in their family/household. Caregivers with concerning substance use in their family/household were less likely to trust their pediatrician [OR = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.05, 0.85] Conclusions: Caregivers endorsed acceptance of universal screening for substance use, including illicit substances, and substance use disorders in the family/household during well-child visits. Pediatricians are trusted professionals with expertise in communicating with parents to maximize the health of their patients; assessing family history of substance use and substance use disorders is a natural extension of their role.

Timing of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits and Families' Home Food Environments.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits are designed to buffer families from food insecurity, but studies suggest that most benefits are used by midmonth. In this study, we examined whether the home food environment varies across the SNAP benefits cycle among participating families . METHODS: Participants in this mixed-methods study were 30 SNAP participants who were primary caregivers of a child ages 4-10 years. The home food environment was measured 1 week before SNAP benefit replenishment and again within 1 week after replenishment by using the Home Food Inventory. Household food insecurity was assessed by using the US Department of Agriculture Household Food Security Survey. Wilcoxon rank tests were used to evaluate changes in median Home Food Inventory subscales and food insecurity pre- to post-replenishment. Qualitative interviews with participating caregivers were conducted to explore contextual factors influencing the home food environment across the benefits cycle. RESULTS: Participants had significantly fewer types of vegetables (median: 7.0 vs 8.5, median difference 1.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.5-2.5, P = .03) and higher food insecurity pre- versus post-replenishment (median: 4.0 vs 2.0, median difference 1, 95% confidence interval: 0.1-1.5, P = .03). Caregivers described employing a variety of intentional strategies to reduce cyclic variation in food availability. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that there is relatively limited cyclic variation in the home food environment among families participating in SNAP. This may be explained by a number of assistance programs and behavioral strategies caregivers used to make food last and buffer against scarcity. Future research should evaluate the relationship between the degree of home food environment changes and child health outcomes.

Do Neighborhoods Matter? A Systematic Review of Modifiable Risk Factors for Obesity among Low Socio-Economic Status Black and Hispanic Children.

BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity increases the risk of obesity and harmful comorbidities later in life. It is influenced by characteristics of a child's neighborhood, particularly among underserved groups. Our objective was to systematically review the evidence relating neighborhood environment and obesity risk among urban, low socioeconomic status (SES) Black and Hispanic children. METHODS: We included studies published from 1993 through early 2017 from PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Sociological Abstracts databases investigating relationships between empirically measured neighborhood characteristics and obesity risk factors in the populations of interest. Databases were last searched on May 8, 2018. Initial analysis took place during 2014 and was completed during 2017. We extracted data on study population, design, and associations between neighborhood characteristics and obesity risk factors. RESULTS: We identified 2011 unique studies; 24 were included. Few studies demonstrated consistent patterns of association. Most neighborhood characteristics were not examined across multiple studies. BMI may be related to living in a lower-income neighborhood or convenience store access. CONCLUSIONS: This review found that the body of evidence relating neighborhood exposures and obesity risk factors among urban, low SES Black (also commonly referred to in the literature as "non-Hispanic Black" or African American) and Hispanic children is limited. Given the high risk of obesity and cardiovascular disease among these populations throughout the life course, research on neighborhood determinants of obesity should specifically include these populations, ensuring adequate power and methodological rigor to detect differences.

Implementing Trauma-Informed Partner Violence Assessment in Family Planning Clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and reproductive coercion (RC) are associated with poor reproductive health. Little is known about how family planning clinics implement brief IPV/RC assessment interventions in practice. We describe the uptake and impact of a brief, trauma-informed, universal IPV/RC assessment and education intervention. METHODS: Intervention implementation was evaluated via a mixed methods study among women ages 18 and up receiving care at one of two family planning clinics in greater Baltimore, MD. This mixed methods study entailed a quasi-experimental, single group pretest-posttest study with family planning clinic patients (baseline and exit survey n = 132; 3-month retention n = 68; retention rate = 52%), coupled with qualitative interviews with providers and patients (total n = 35). RESULTS: Two thirds (65%) of women reported receiving at least one element of the intervention on their exit survey immediately following the clinic-visit. Patients reported that clinic-based IPV assessment is helpful, irrespective of IPV history. Relative to those who reported neither, participants who received either intervention element reported greater perceived caring from providers, confidence in provider response to abusive relationships, and knowledge of IPV-related resources at follow-up. Providers and patients alike described the educational card as a valuable tool. Participants described trade-offs of paper versus in-person, electronic medical record-facilitated screening, and patient reluctance to disclose current situations of abuse. CONCLUSION: In real-world family planning clinic settings, a brief assessment and support intervention was successful in communicating provider caring and increasing knowledge of violence-related resources, endpoints previously deemed valuable by IPV survivors. Results emphasize the merit of universal education in IPV/RC clinical interventions over seeking IPV disclosure.