In Their Own Words: Content Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Responses for a More Nuanced, Local Understanding of Mental Illness Stigma.

This content analysis seeks to extend what is already known in nursing and public health about the stigma attached to mental illness, and further understand the following evaluation question: How do members of communities targeted by Make It OK, a community initiative to reduce mental illness stigma, describe that stigma? The analysis of responses to open-ended questions included in a community-based survey followed deductive and inductive coding based on published frameworks and survey responses. The domains of stigma were categorized as actions toward people living with mental illness, beliefs about mental illness, and beliefs about people living with mental illness. These identified constructs build on the existing literature base of mental illness stigma in nursing and public health, illuminate the nuance of stigma, and can help tailor anti-stigma efforts.

Don't Say "Beans" When Promoting Plant Protein to Family Meal Planners.

PURPOSE: To identify "headlines" that would engage recipients to consider plant protein over red meat. DESIGN: Mail and web survey. SETTING: Urban Minnesota community. SUBJECTS: 144 survey respondents from our health plan and community program distribution lists who live with at least 1 other person and eat meat. INTERVENTION: We asked respondents how likely they would be to click on each of 24 headlines with a motivator (eating plant protein for health vs for environmental reasons) and a barrier (family preferences, knowledge about plant proteins, or cooking skills). 16 headlines contained the word "beans". MEASURES: We created categorical variables for each headline construct: (1) motivator, (2) barrier, and (3) reference to beans. Using a mixed model with random effects, we compared, for each construct, respondents' self-reported likelihood to click on a headline. RESULTS: Health-related headlines performed significantly better than environmental headlines (P = .0019, 95% CI .01, .11). Family-oriented headlines performed slightly better than skills-oriented (P = .0927, 95% CI -.01, .11) and knowledge-oriented (P = .0960, 95% CI -.01, .11) headlines. Headlines containing the word "beans" performed significantly worse than those not containing "beans" (P < .0001, 95% CI -.22, -.12). CONCLUSIONS: The population represented by our survey respondents report being most likely to click on headlines that emphasize health and family. They report they are significantly less likely to click on headlines that promote beans.

A Cluster-Randomized Evaluation of the SuperShelf Intervention in Choice-Based Food Pantries.

BACKGROUND: Interventions in food pantry settings have the potential to improve health among clients at risk of diet-related disease. PURPOSE: This study evaluates whether a cluster-randomized, behavioral intervention in food pantries resulted in improved client outcomes. METHODS: Sixteen Minnesota food pantries were randomized to an intervention (n = 8) or control condition (n = 8). The intervention offered pantries technical assistance to improve healthy food supply and implement behavioral economics strategies to promote healthy food selection. A convenience sample of adult clients were enrolled (paired sample, 158 intervention, 159 control) and followed for 1 year. Additional clients were enrolled at follow-up to assess food selection (follow-up sample, 85 intervention, 102 control). Analysis was limited to data from 11 pantries (5 intervention, 6 control) due to COVID-19. Outcome measures included Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) total and subcomponent scores for 24-hr dietary recalls and client cart selections, and Life's Simple 7 (LS7) total and subcomponent scores. Multilevel mixed-effects models tested whether client outcomes differed by intervention condition. RESULTS: In adjusted models, there were no statistically significant differences by intervention condition in HEI-2015 or LS7 scores. Clients in intervention food pantries had improved Refined Grain subcomponent scores (p = .004); clients in control pantries had worsened Saturated Fat subcomponents scores (p = .019) and improved physical activity scores (p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not result in improved diet quality or cardiovascular health as measured by HEI-2015 or LS7. Coordinated efforts across settings are needed to address health risks facing this population.

Food pantries are an optimal setting to address health and diet quality among clients experiencing food insecurity. This study tests whether a food pantry intervention resulted in improved dietary and cardiovascular outcomes among clients. Sixteen Minnesota food pantries were randomized to either receive an intervention or a delayed intervention. The intervention offered food pantries technical assistance to improve healthy food supply and "nudge" clients toward healthy choices. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, measures were completed 11 pantries (5 intervention, 6 control). Outcome measures included diet quality of food selected by clients, diet quality of food consumed by clients, and Life's Simple 7 measure of cardiovascular health. The intervention did not result in improved diet quality or cardiovascular health. Coordinated efforts across community settings are needed to address health risks facing this population.

A randomized study of food pantry environment-level change following the SuperShelf intervention.

The charitable food system is rapidly evolving. Interventions that target the food pantry environment and use behavioral economics are in high demand, but can be difficult to implement in a low-resource setting. This is an analysis of secondary, environment-level outcomes in a food pantry intervention (SuperShelf); the study evaluates whether the intervention resulted in measurable changes to the food pantry environment and improved diet quality of the food available to clients, compared with a control group of food pantries. Eleven food pantries were randomized to an intervention (n = 5) or control (n = 6) condition and completed baseline and one-year follow-up measures between 2018 and 2020. The intervention addressed healthy food supply and the appeal of healthy foods using behavioral economics. Assessments included manager surveys, intervention fidelity, food inventory, and food supply tracked over 5 days. Measures included change in intervention fidelity (range 0-100) with four subcomponents; Healthy Eating Index scores (HEI-2015, range 0-100) with 13 subcomponents; and Food Assortment Scoring Tool scores (FAST, range 0-100). Descriptive analyses and t-tests examined pre-post changes within and between intervention arms. Average fidelity scores increased from baseline to follow-up in the intervention group compared with the control group (p < .001), as did FAST scores (p = .02). Average HEI-2015 Total scores increased in the intervention group by 6.3 points and by 1.6 points in the control group, but the difference in change between groups was not statistically significant (p = .56). The intervention was implemented with high fidelity at five sites, with some evidence of change in the nutritional quality of the food available on the shelf to clients.

Using a brief tool to assess healthy school environments: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: HealthPartners developed a checklist, the School Environment Index (SEI), that it uses to help elementary schools identify opportunities to improve student nutrition and increase physical activity. The objective in this pilot study was to assess whether the SEI, as administered, can be used to measure the progress of these programs. STUDY DESIGN: The authors focused their evaluation on the National Quality Forum measure evaluation components of reliability and validity; feasibility; and use and usability to assess the SEI's performance. METHODS: The authors used data from 214 SEIs completed by the 69 schools that participated in the school challenge in at least 1 of the years 2015 through 2019. Between 29 and 53 schools participated in a particular year. RESULTS: Cronbach's α was 0.79, intraclass correlation was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.22-0.53), and sensitivity to change was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.17-0.66) per 1-year change in the standardized SEI score. The median (interquartile range) time required to complete the survey was 11 (7-21) minutes. On only 8 surveys was an entire domain of the SEI skipped or only a single response to the domain recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The SEI shows adequate internal consistency and sensitivity to change in this pilot evaluation. It is also feasible and useful to identify opportunities to improve practices and policies related to student nutrition and physical activity in partnership with the participating elementary schools. However, it lacks reliability as used. Increasing the number of respondents per school might moderate the impact of individual respondents and thereby increase reliability.

Needs and Preferences Among Food Pantry Clients.

INTRODUCTION: Food pantries serve households in need, including many with a family member with a diet-related chronic disease, yet data on client priorities to inform hunger relief practices are lacking. We used a statewide client survey in Minnesota to determine needs and priorities of food pantry clients in 2017 and 2019 and to identify how well Minnesota pantries met those needs in 2019. METHODS: Our survey was administered in 2017 and 2019. Food pantries in Minnesota were mailed 25 surveys each, with instructions for administering the surveys anonymously to clients. Descriptive analyses compared 2017 and 2019 data and compared client priorities for foods and services with how often they were available at the pantry in 2019. RESULTS: The 2017 survey represented 4,321 clients from 188 pantries; the 2019 survey represented 5,529 clients from 220 pantries. Most measures of food pantry use were consistently high across the years; about three-quarters of clients had been visiting the pantry for a year or more. In 2019, 85% of clients said it was important to have fresh fruits and vegetables, but only 52% said these were always available. About two-thirds had a household member with a diet-related chronic disease. The ability to choose their own foods was clients' top priority. CONCLUSION: The types of food most requested by clients tended to be healthy but were inconsistently available. Most important to clients was being able to choose their own food. Results underscore the need for continued monitoring of client priorities.

A behavioural economics approach to improving healthy food selection among food pantry clients.

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. DESIGN: An 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. SETTING: Four Minnesota food pantries, USA.ParticipantsClients visiting intervention pantries before (n 71) and after (n 70) the intervention. RESULTS: Fidelity 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). CONCLUSIONS: When implemented as intended, SuperShelf has the potential to improve the nutritional quality of foods available to and selected by pantry clients.