Assignment8 Group5

Group 5, Angela Cho, Emily Cornell, Enya Meng, Julia Feygelman
Assignment 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................v
I. PROBLEM STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 1
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1
Who is Affected? ..................................................................................................................... 1
Relative Disparity in Low-income Latino Children ................................................................ 2
Target Population .................................................................................................................... 2
Past Interventions .................................................................................................................... 3
Needs Assessment ................................................................................................................... 3
Long Term Impact and Significance ....................................................................................... 4
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 4
PROGRAM GOAL ................................................................................................................... 4
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 4
1a. Behavior Objective ............................................................................................................ 4
1b. Behavior Objective ............................................................................................................ 4
2. Behavior Objective .............................................................................................................. 5
3. Knowledge Objective .......................................................................................................... 5
4. Process Objective ................................................................................................................ 6
STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................................... 6
Recruitment Strategy ............................................................................................................... 7
Resource Strategy .................................................................................................................... 8
Education Strategy................................................................................................................... 9
Interpersonal Processes Strategy ........................................................................................... 10
Access Strategy...................................................................................................................... 11
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................................................. 12
III. PROCESS EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 14
IV. IMPACT EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 15
Research Questions................................................................................................................ 15
Research Strategy .................................................................................................................. 16
Research Design .................................................................................................................... 16
Hypotheses............................................................................................................................. 18
Unit Of Analysis .................................................................................................................... 20
Sampling Strategy.................................................................................................................. 20
Analytical Plan ...................................................................................................................... 25
Ethical Issues ......................................................................................................................... 26
V. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 27
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 31
ii
Assignment 8
APPENDIX A: TIMELINE......................................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX B: LESSON PLAN.................................................................................................. 42
APPENDIX C: LOGIC MODEL ................................................................................................ 43
APPENDIX D: BUDGET ............................................................................................................ 44
APPENDIX E: BUDGET JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................ 47
APPENDIX F: BIOSTATISTICIAN CONSULTANT REPORT .............................................. 53
iii
Assignment 8
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
BMI: Body Mass Index
FFT: Family Fun Time
FV: Fruits and Vegetables
HBM: Health Belief Model
HE: Health Educator
LA: Los Angeles
LAUSD: Los Angeles Unified School District
PM: Program Manager
SES: Socioeconomic Status
SCT: Social Cognitive Theory
iv
Assignment 8
ABSTRACT
Childhood obesity is one of the most serious global public health challenges of the twenty
first century and its prevalence has increased at an alarming rate. Over the past three decades, the
rate of childhood obesity has nearly tripled nationwide. While its determinants are complex, a
major risk factor for childhood obesity is poor nutrition and imbalance of caloric intake with
caloric output. The highest prevalence of childhood obesity is among Latinos and data from the
Los Angeles (LA) County reports a large disparity, showing that children from low
socioeconomic status (SES) suffer from higher obesity rates than those from affluent
backgrounds.
Our program Keep It Up Beet will consist of a series of nutrition education workshops,
with a cooking demonstration and gardening component, hosted throughout the 2018-19
academic year. The curricula incorporate lessons such as tasting a variety of health recipes,
reducing the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), and learning how to harvest
several fruits and vegetables (FV). Our target population is 5th grade children at Fishburn
located in Maywood, East LA as it is comprised of low-income Latino children who are
especially vulnerable to risk factors for obesity.
We based our strategies around components of the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and
Health Belief Model (HBM), as incorporating these theories into intervention programs have
shown to be the most successful in fostering positive behavior changes related to dietary choices
and weight status for youth and for Latino populations. Through increasing nutrition knowledge
and through parental modeling, the projected impact of our intervention is to ultimately reduce
community prevalence of childhood and adult obesity, along with associated health risks.
v
I. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Overview: Childhood obesity is a global and national epidemic that is a growing public
health concern. Children who have a Body Mass Index (BMI), a measurement determined by
height to weight ratio, greater than or equal to the 95th percentile for their age and gender are
considered to be obese.1 According to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
the prevalence of obesity in children ages 6-11 almost tripled since 1980 to 2015 (6.5% vs
18.4%).2,3 Obesity in children is associated with a number of serious physical health issues
including high blood pressure,4,5 asthma,4,6 and an increased risk of developing life-threatening
conditions such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, which are major leading
causes of death in the country.2,7-10 Obese children also face serious mental health issues like
anxiety and depression,4,11,12 along with social consequences such as increased feelings of social
isolation and poor self-image due to negative social stigma and discrimination by their peers.2,13
Obese children show poor academic performance compared to normal weight children, and it has
been predicted to continue throughout future grade levels.2,13,14 Because childhood obesity is a
predictor for severe chronic diseases in adulthood, it implies significant negative economic
impacts through dramatic increases in direct medical spending and loss of productivity in the
workplace.2,13,15
Genetic factors and individual behaviors influence but cannot fully explain the rising
prevalence and scale of the obesity epidemic. While its determinants are complex, a major risk
factor for childhood obesity is poor nutrition and imbalance of caloric intake with caloric
output.2,13 Low physical activity with increased consumption of high energy dense, low nutrient
foods, and sugar sweetened beverages (SSB) lead to the extreme weight gain linked to obesity.4
Who is Affected? Individuals in low-income communities in America have shown to be
1
Assignment 8
more vulnerable to poor nutrition than those in higher income communities, with almost double
the prevalence in childhood obesity (26.9% vs 12.5%).16 Low-income areas tend to have limited
access to healthier food options and greater access to low cost, energy dense, and nutrient poor
foods due to a high density of convenience stores.2,10,17,18 These factors cause unhealthy eating
behaviors and promote weight gain, evidenced by higher prevalence in obesity for children in
low-income neighborhoods.19,20
Relative Disparity in Low-income Latino Children: Nationally, the highest prevalence
of childhood obesity is among Latinos (21.9%), followed by African Americans (19.5%),
Caucasians (14.7%), and Asians (8.6%).21 According to a health survey administered by the LA
County Department of Public Health in 2009, East LA had the highest percent of Latino
residents (70.5%) in all of LA, with 14% of them living below the Federal Poverty Level,
making them an important target for intervention. Further, the rate of obese children in grades 5,
7, and 9 in East LA (26%) was higher than the rate reported for the LAUSD school system as a
whole (23%).9,22 Latino children in East LA experience obesity at a rate 1.52 times that of the
national average (17%).2 Obesity in children has been linked to obesity in adulthood, and
intervening on the earlier stages of life poses as a priority.23-26
Target Population: The direct target population of this intervention is 5th grade children
at Fishburn Avenue Elementary School located in Maywood, East LA. This is located in the
lowest income area of East LA with 544 total students attending and 97% of them identifying as
Latino, making it a suitable choice for our intervention as low-income Latino children are
especially vulnerable to risk factors for obesity.27 We are targeting 5th grade children because
nutrition education and healthy-eating programs integrated into a school curriculum in this age
group have shown to be highly effective in shaping food choices and preferences.28,29 Families of
2
Assignment 8
obese children are indirect targets of this intervention, as they may be burdened by the
substantial economic costs of managing obesity and its associated complications.30 Additionally,
improved parental eating behaviors31 and parental involvement in school programs have shown
to be effective in reducing the risk of obesity in low-income Latino children.32
Past Interventions: Successful interventions in highly impacted communities were
characterized by having multiple components that promoted both healthy eating and physical
activity in settings children spend most of their time (home and school) and involved
participation from community or family members.18,29,30,33 Government agencies and initiatives
have worked to address issues of obesity, poor eating habits, and physical inactivity in children
through a larger public health approach while the state of California also created federally funded
programs to successfully promote healthy lifestyle changes.9 Interventions for weight loss in
children show greater long-term efficacy than in adults34 helping to lay the foundation for
lifelong healthy behaviors that reduce morbidity in adulthood.35 Garden and education
interventions in Latino communities have been successful in promoting consumption, choice,
and availability of FV, self-efficacy in preparation of healthy meals, and community
engagement, organization, and empowerment.36
Needs Assessment: An extensive literature review of studies will provide statistics
regarding the prevalence of obese Latino children and estimate the levels of nutrition knowledge
and the environmental and societal barriers to improved nutrition in the community. To
determine the needs of the target population, a series of focus groups interviews will be
conducted in English and Spanish with parents from Fishburn. Topics discussed in focus groups
will include ways we could make our program more relevant, interesting, and helpful to the
Latino population.37 These recommendation inputs will provide a basic framework for the
3
Assignment 8
content and structure our program curricula.
Long Term Impact and Significance: It is vital that individuals, especially low-income
Latino children who are especially vulnerable to poor nutrition, develop healthy dietary
behaviors to decrease the risk for developing obesity and additional associated negative
consequences. By focusing on 5th graders in a primarily Latino, low-income school community,
we aim to ultimately reduce community prevalence of childhood and adult obesity and improve
health outcomes in East LA.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
PROGRAM GOAL: The goal of our school-based nutrition and gardening education
intervention is to reduce the dietary risk factors of childhood obesity among 5th graders at
Fishburn located in East LA.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES:
1a. Behavior Objective: By June 15th, 2019, self-reported average daily consumption of
fruit among 5th graders at Fishburn will increase by 28% from 3.2 servings to 4.1 servings.
1b. Behavior Objective: By June 15th, 2019, self-reported average daily consumption of
vegetables among 5th graders at Fishburn will increase by 33% from 2.1 servings to 2.8 servings.
Rationale: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention4,38 and the
World Health Organization1,7,8 best practices for childhood obesity prevention interventions
include increasing FV consumption. Replacing energy-dense foods with lower-calorie, high-
volume foods has shown to be a successful tool for weight management.8 By increasing intake of
FV, conversely, the consumption of energy dense foods that contribute to obesity may diminish.9
Consumption of FV increased, respectively, by 28% and 33%, in an obesity prevention program
4
Assignment 8
similar to ours’ for Latino children in North Carolina,10 leading us to project similar increases at
Fishburn.
2. Behavior Objective: By June 15th, 2019, the proportion of 5th graders at Fishburn
who self-report consumption of 1 or more servings of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) a day
will decrease by 57%, from 35% (23/65 students) to 15% (10/65 students).
Rationale: Many studies provide evidence for the positive association between the
frequency of SSB consumption and increased weight gain, higher BMI scores, and rising obesity
rates.13,17 In 2016, about 35.2% of Latino children ages 2-11 living in East LA reported drinking
1 or more servings of SSB per day, higher than the rates throughout LA County (26.6%).16 A
study that reviewed changes in rates of SSB consumption among children ages 6-11 in LA
County showed a 12.4% decrease from 45.2% (827/1830) in 2007 to 39.6% (725/1830) in
2011.18 This study along with a meta-analysis of global studies in 2017 showed school-based
intervention programs to be the most successful in decreasing SSB intake in children.19 We
estimated a greater percent decrease of 53% by averaging the results of studies based on similar
target populations. One study that utilized parental involvement in nutrition education in Latino
kids aged 2-5 showed an 82% reduction39 and classroom-based interventions in Latino kids aged
12-17 showed a 66% reduction in SSB intake.
3. Knowledge Objective: By June 15th, 2019, 5th graders at Fishburn will increase their
nutrition knowledge by 11% on a systematized questionnaire compared to baseline scores (from
14.6/26 to 16.2/26 points).
Rationale: In a school lunch initiative study done in a low-income school district with
13.5% Latino children, nutrition education programming for 4th and 5th graders increased
nutrition knowledge by 11% and led to healthier eating behaviors and attitudes.40 Scores from a
5
Assignment 8
student nutrition knowledge evaluation in this study showed 14.6 out of 26 total possible points
for only 5th graders.40 Multiple studies conducted with Latino youth from low-income schools in
LA have shown increased self-efficacy of healthy food choices and significantly decreased BMI,
providing support for our target population and evidencing a link between nutrition knowledge
and its impact on obesity.32,41
4. Process Objective: By June 15th, 2019, parent recruitment at Fishburn will yield at
least a 75% participation rate. As there are 60 children, and we aim to have 75% of parental
participation, we aim to have an average of 45 students with a parental attendance at FFT.
Rationale: Recruiting parents to FFT is an essential pillar of the intervention, crucial to
the sustainability of newly-acquired healthy eating behaviors in the target youth population. One
of the ways children learn about food is by observing the eating behavior of others.31 Several
studies provide evidence for the role of social modeling in eating behavior, such as the increased
consumption of calcium in girls who reported seeing their fathers drink milk and an associated
greater fruit juice and vegetable intake among school age children with parental modeling.42,43
We chose a parental participation rate of 75% as it was the average of participation rates reported
from previous studies with similar recruitment and retention strategies.44,45
STRATEGIES:
Introduction: To achieve our program goal and objectives related to reducing the dietary
risk factors of childhood obesity at Fishburn by June 15th, 2019, we will implement recruitment,
resource, and education strategies. We based our strategies around components of the SCT and
HBM as incorporating these theories into intervention programs have shown to be the most
successful in fostering positive behavior changes related to dietary choices and weight status for
youth and for Latino populations.46,47 In regards to SCT, we aim to increase behavioral
6
Assignment 8
capabilities of children by teaching them how to grow and prepare food from the garden, then
promote observational learning through the involvement of trained bilingual educators and
parents. In regard to HBM, we plan to identify the families’ perceived barriers through a needs
assessment, and decrease perceived barriers to fruit and vegetable consumption by supplying
participants with free, quality, fresh FV. We aim to increase the perceived benefits of parent
participation through rewarding incentives. Through nutrition education and gardening lessons
and providing FV, we intend to increase the self-efficacy and nutrition knowledge among parents
and children to aid them in choosing healthier food options.
RECRUITMENT STRATEGY: To encourage and recruit parent involvement in
intervention, aiding in sustainment of healthier dietary behaviors at both school and home
environments.
Activities: (1) Create flyers written in English and Spanish to advertise parent
involvement activities and distribute them through mail, the school listserv, a posting on the
school website, and phone calls; (2) Develop a relationship with key school staff that interact
with parents on a regular basis; (3) Utilize contingency management: offer both monetary and
non-monetary incentives for initial buy in and sustained parental engagement, during both FFT
and an awards celebration at the end of the year. Incentives will include (a) raffle prizes for
attending FFT, (b) take-home boxes of FV for each family attending FFT (c) giving certificates
to participants and (d) awarding prizes during the awards celebration event. The recruitment
strategy corresponds with objective 4.
Rationale: Research has shown higher recruitment and retention rates of Latino adults
for community interventions when utilizing flyers written in Spanish, having bilingual staff, and
having referrals made by trusted members of the community.48,49 Being able to identify and form
7
Assignment 8
relationships with trusted members within the social network of the parent population, be it a
teacher or a member of the Parent Committee at Fishburn, and having them aid in publicity and
referral efforts would likely contribute to the improvement of recruitment and retention of
parents.37 Research has emphasized the disparity between underserved community members,
focused on the present, and intervention programs, often focused on the future.50 Community
members are focused on meeting day to day needs, which takes up their limited resources and
attentional bandwidth. Programs focused on building the foundation for a better future often take
away from this finite amount of resources, so it is crucial that programs offer incentives that
overshadow the costs of attending. Receiving incentives can help foster a sense of
accomplishment and self-efficacy in participants, which can build intrinsic motivation over time
as the individual increases their knowledge and skills.51 Contingency management is the positive,
systematic reinforcement of desired behaviors by utilizing small incentives on a regular basis.52
Raffles and take home boxes provide immediate incentives to encourage participation.
Accumulation of raffle tickets over time that reflect repetitive attendance and allow opportunities
for larger prizes at the awards ceremony encourage ongoing, sustained participation.
RESOURCE STRATEGY: Utilizing the six existing raised garden beds in the
Fishburn’s recess area, grow FV for use in educational workshops and for consumption.
Activities: (1) Engage parents through a discussion during an existing School Site
Council Meeting53 to determine what FV are culturally relevant and desired by the school
community; (2) Select seeds from the LAUSD approved plant list54 by seasonality and based
upon School Site Council Meeting outcomes; (3) Acquire seeds, soil, water cans, shears, trowels,
wood, hammers, and nails from the Garden Center at The Home Depot and The Home Depot at
3040 Slauson Ave, Huntington Park, CA 90255; (4) Engage students and parents in a kick-off
8
Assignment 8
FFT to create the garden resource alongside intervention staff by: (a) Cleaning up existing
garden bed, (b) filling beds with new soil, (c) planting and watering first seeds, and (d)
constructing a picnic table for use in nutrition education workshops and as a general gathering
site near the beds.
Rationale: By growing FV on school grounds, we are providing the FV, and thus, the
resources for the intervention programming. Engaging the students and parents in determining
what will go in the garden and building the garden increases community participation and
ensures that the intervention is appropriately tailored to the intervention group. Community
consultation and participation, and culturally tailored components have been shown to be
effective in improving health behaviors among the intervention group.55 The resource strategy
corresponds with objectives 1 and 3.
EDUCATION STRATEGY: Implement nutrition education and gardening sessions for
the 5th graders at Fishburn.
Activities: (1) Hire two qualified graduate student Health Educators (HE) and a gardener
who are bilingual (English/Spanish); (2) (a) Adapt the nutrition education and cooking
curriculum from “Cooking with Kids” to and (b) implement in 45-minute nutrition education
sessions, taught by the HEs; (3) (a) Adapt a garden education curriculum from the LA Sprouts
study and (b) implement in 45-minute gardening sessions taught by the gardener.
Rationale: Nutrition education geared towards children has shown to be a vital
component for obesity interventions.56-58 The positive effects attributed to including an education
component include improved results on nutrition knowledge tests, healthier eating behaviors and
attitudes,40 increased daily intake of FV, increased self-efficacy of healthy food preparation and
choices,41 and long-term reduction of overweight status.59 Self-efficacy for diet-related behaviors
9
Assignment 8
in elementary school-aged children has been shown to be a useful instrument in evaluating
nutrition interventions.60 The goal of “Cooking with Kids” is to provide hands-on education for
children and their families, a goal that aligns well with our intervention’s mission.61 The guide
contains teaching tools and tips designed for 5th graders, with bilingual student materials in
Spanish and English, which is ideal as our target population is primarily Latino. The lessons are
aligned with Common Core State Standards in Language Arts and Mathematics and National
Health Education Standards, allowing for easy integration into a public-school system. These
sessions are intended to foster an appreciation of and deeper relationship with the foods the kids
will be using during the nutrition education portion. We plan to adapt the garden curriculum
from the LA Sprouts intervention,41 which was a nutrition education intervention with a
gardening component, implemented among 4th and 5th grade students in East LA, with a similar
goal and population to Keep It Up Beet. LA Sprouts was successful in increasing preference for
FV, increasing positive perceptions of the taste of FV, and increasing total intake of FV.41 The
education strategy corresponds with objectives 1, 2, and 3.
INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES STRATEGY: Host FFT once per month to
encourage family participation in nutrition education.
Activities: (1) Plan a nutrition and gardening activity session adapted for participation of
both children and their parental figures; (2) Distribute take-home recipes and tips for healthy
cooking and snack ideas, as well as any food prepared during the session.62
Rationale: Parents/guardians are important indirect targets in the reduction of childhood
obesity risk factors as studies show that nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to
food are transmitted from parent to child.63-67 Through Keep It Up Beet we expect to improve
nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in the parents, making community collaboration an
10
Assignment 8
essential component.37 The interpersonal processes strategy corresponds with objectives 1, 2, and
3.
ACCESS STRATEGY: Promote fruit and vegetable consumption by providing students
with fresh FV from school garden to minimize barriers to consumption.
Activities: (1) Provide take-home boxes of harvested fresh FV after each FFT to (a)
increase opportunities for consumption immediately after gardening, (b) allow children and
parents to act on what they have learned in the session, and further develop self-efficacy in
preparing FV after leaving the session, and (c) act as an incentive for families to attend FFT as
discussed in the recruitment strategy; (2) Between sessions, gardener will place excess harvested
FV from the garden in 5th grade classrooms to increase opportunities for consumption. The
access strategy corresponds with objectives 1 and 4.
Rationale: While providing students and their families with produce from the garden will
not provide students with a consistent supply, this will increase overall access to fresh FV.
Providing access to free, quality FV in a place where children spend most of their time provides
them with the environmental and financial capacity to increase knowledge and consumption. An
assessment in low-income communities has shown that inadequate access to healthy foods due to
high prices and geographical location, as well as low quality of available foods, were significant
barriers to healthy eating behaviors.68 Further, changes in accessibility of fresh produce are a
direct predictor for consumption of fresh produce.69 Per the HBM, to induce behavioral change,
it is necessary to address perceived barriers so that an individual believes that the benefits of
action outweigh the barriers.70 In East LA, 31% of households are food insecure, defined as
having “limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or
uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways,” suggesting that lack of
11
Assignment 8
access to fresh and healthy food is a barrier to healthy eating behavior in East LA.71 By growing
and placing freshly harvested FV in 5th grade classrooms and directly giving families take-home
boxes of produce from the garden, we lessen the access barrier for fruit and vegetable
consumption and provide opportunity to utilize lessons learned in the education programming.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
Program Team: a) A Program Manager (PM) will work as full-time staff and oversee
and run a majority of the program and its activities by maintaining close communication with the
entire team, being responsible for administrative tasks, hosting and planning FFT, fostering good
relationships with parent participants, and meeting with the Parent Committee and school
principal once a month. The PM will establish a partnership with Fishburn’s principal and
parents, establish expected attendance, and recruit the rest of the staff team. b) A gardener will
use the gardening education curricula from LA Sprouts to prepare and teach the gardening
sessions). The gardener will maintain the 6 garden beds on school grounds throughout the
duration of the program, obtain necessary materials and tools for gardening, and keep in contact
with partners who provide resources. c) Two graduate student Health Educators (HE) will
teach and lead interactive nutrition education and cooking sessions for 5th grade students. The
staff team will select the location for workshops, purchase supplies, plan, and deliver workshops.
Nutrition Education: “Cooking with Kids” curriculum guide will be adapted by the
graduate HEs to create a full year-long lesson plan that also incorporates SSB lessons and
includes ethnically variable ingredients and dishes. The general outline of a 45-minute nutrition
education lesson plan using “Cooking with Kids” is pictured in Appendix B.
Gardening Education: The gardener will design components of interactive gardening
workshops for the first trimester of the school year, adapting lesson plans from LA Sprouts. The
12
Assignment 8
remaining workshops will be developed as the program rolls out, because these workshops will
depend on the success and growth of the garden beds.
Delivery of Workshops: The HEs will teach the weekly nutrition education and cooking
demonstrations, while the gardener will lead the gardening portion. An estimate of 60 5th grade
student participants will be divided into two groups of 30 students. These two groups will receive
the workshop sequentially, for 45 minutes each. Within each group, 15 students will start with
the nutrition portion and 15 with gardening, then interchange sessions for the second half of the
workshop.
Family Fun Time: a) Lesson plan: FFT will follow the same series of activities
delivered to the students, with the addition of take-home activities and recipes, provided by the
Cooking with Kids curriculum. The PM will be in charge of administering these workshops with
the aid of HEs. b) Promotion: Flyers will be distributed in English and Spanish to promote FFT.
c) Incentives: For every FFT attended, the parent will receive a free box of FV to take home and
a raffle ticket for a chance to win one of four $20 gift cards for a local grocery store which will
be chosen at the end of each session. He or she will also receive a special raffle ticket for each
attendance, for a maximum of 8 total (1 each month, for 8 months) which will be used to enter a
raffle to win the grand prize at the end of the year.
Awards Event: This 1-hour event will be held in the last week of May 2019 and serve as
a celebration for student completion of the program as well as an incentive for parents to
increased feelings of accomplishment and being proud for their child. Every student will have
their name be announced and receive a printed certification from the principal. A slideshow will
display progress photos of the garden and workshop participation. Outstanding student awards
will be distributed to five nominated participants. A raffle will be held at the end for choosing the
13
Assignment 8
two recipients of the grand prize, a steel cooking ware set.
III. PROCESS EVALUATION

Purpose: We will evaluate the key aspects of Keep It Up Beet’s performance through a
systematic examination and documentation of service utilization and program delivery. Tools
that will be utilized include satisfaction surveys, meeting minutes, registration and sign-in sheets,
attendance sheets, contact logs, adherence checklists, marketing and publicity flyers, and other
administrative tools.
Recruitment Attendance: We will track the attendance of 5th grade students at Fishburn
at the weekly interactive nutrition and gardening education sessions with an attendance sheet.
The engagement of the 5th graders will be assessed with an activities checklist to check whether
all the students had a chance to engage in the hands-on activities. Parent participation will be
measured via a sign-in sheet at every FFT event where parents will mark their attendance next to
their child’s name. We anticipate 75% attendance rate for parents at FFT. It is expected that more
than one parent per child may attend, a caregiver (i.e. grandparent, aunt, uncle) other than a
parent may attend, or parents may bring additional children to FFT. We will take attendance of
additional guests, but for the purposes of recruitment, we will measure the number of children
who have a parental figure in attendance. If fewer than 75% of children have a parental figure in
attendance at FFT events, then further recruitment efforts may be needed. An output percentage
(number of parents attending/number of anticipated parents attending) can be calculated to
quantitatively measure the success rate of parental recruitment.
Participant Satisfaction: A survey will be distributed to families to survey how the
family heard, if at all, of the program, measure satisfaction with the event FFT and ask for any
feedback for future improvement. The Program Manager will pass out the quick survey at the
14
Assignment 8
end of the final FFT, or Awards Ceremony, to be completed on paper by the program
participants. The survey will consist of a few questions graded on a Likert scale, assessing the
parents’ opinions of the effectiveness of the taught curriculum. An additional section for free
commentary will be included to ensure that qualitative data will be captured, to better understand
potential participant complaints.
Resource Utilization: The Program Manager will log marketing and publicity materials,
such as number of flyers dispersed as well as keeping track of telephone and email logs
(including families contacted, mode of outreach, and responses). The type, cost, and number of
incentives awarded to families will be tracked in a log. An inventory of all the gardening tools
and education materials will be marked off before and after each session to insure all supplies are
present.
Program Delivery: We will assess the adherence of planned activities to the actual
activities. The Health Educator leading each session will oversee completing a checklist. The
adherence checklist will confirm which lessons are covered and which activities have occurred.
A log of the garden crops will also be recorded, documenting what was planted, when it was
planted, when it was watered, and when it was harvested. We will track the number of take-home
boxes of harvested fresh FV are taken, keep a record of the FV in each box, and keep record of
the FV taken from the garden and put in the classroom.
IV. IMPACT EVALUATION

RESEARCH QUESTIONS (RQ):
RQ1: Is participation in Keep It Up Beet associated with improved dietary habits among
target participants?
RQ2: Does participation in Keep It Up Beet improve nutrition/food knowledge among
15
Assignment 8
target participants?
RESEARCH STRATEGY: We are using an explanatory research strategy in the
evaluation of Keep It Up Beet. This approach is appropriate as we are seeking to explain an
association between program participation and dietary risk factors for obesity. Descriptive
research will come into play when we evaluate baselines of fruit, vegetable, and SSB
consumption and nutrition/food knowledge among participants and the comparison group, with
the goal of generalizing to the greater population Latino youth of low SES. Exploratory research
was utilized previously in the needs assessment, program planning, and development stages.
RESEARCH DESIGN: We will conduct a quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest
nonequivalent comparison group design to assess the impact of Keep It Up Beet. A pretest will
examine comparability of the two groups by controlling for the testing effect, and posttests
(immediate, 6-month, and 12-month follow-ups) will be used to assess short and long-term
effects.72 By giving both groups a test at the beginning, we can void any improvement effect that
may arise from learning from taking the test itself. Posttests ensure prolonged knowledge
retention and behavior change in case the improvement immediately post intervention arises by
chance.
A cross-sectional study was ruled out as we are seeking to ascertain effects of our
intervention over time. A retrospective cohort study would not be possible since the intervention
must occur before the evaluation of outcomes. A prospective cohort study would not be feasible
as we are looking at a specific subgroup of the population which would not have been
represented by a cohort. Since we are “treating” the participants with an intervention, any
observational research design is not fitting. A true experiment is not feasible given the small
scale of this pilot study. If randomization were at the individual level, then contamination within
16
Assignment 8
the school would pose a threat to internal validity. Health-related behaviors tend to spread
throughout social networks. In other words, if some children received the intervention and others
did not, the latter may pick up on new behaviors and knowledge spread by the children who do
receive program components during day to day interactions.
To increase equivalence of the treatment and “control” groups, we are using a
comparison group that is demographically similar to our intervention group with regard to
characteristics that are most related to the study’s dependent variables.72 Our comparison group
will be 5th graders at Huntington Park Elementary School in East LA. This school has a garden
onsite and is primarily comprised of low SES Latino students (97.5%) but is not receiving an
intervention related to nutrition or gardening.
We assume that students in both schools receive a comparable level of education and
enrichment programs, other than the presence of the Keep It Up Beet program. This assumption
reduces the threat posed by the Hawthorne effect, given that both groups will be receiving
attention through various school programs. Maturation will not be an issue because our treatment
and comparison groups are of the same age. The history effect should be minimized, as both
groups would experience major world events simultaneously. They could still, however,
experience local events differently. For example, one school might have a plumbing issue and
cancel school for a week. In our analysis, we will take such incidences into consideration.
Regression to the mean is unlikely, as dietary habits do not usually spontaneously improve. If
they did, this would occur in both groups and would not affect the analysis. Attrition is unlikely
because the intervention is integrated into the school curriculum, and both groups will be
attending school normally. We plan to use the same methods for measuring consumption,
participation, and knowledge at the pretest and posttest stages for both groups, so
17
Assignment 8
instrumentation is unlikely to pose a threat to validity.
Lack of randomization in this study design presents a few weaknesses, or threats to
internal validity. Differences between schools that may introduce selection bias cannot all be
controlled for, such as school lunch quality, built environment, level of care from school
administration, and parental attitudes. Additionally, contamination could pose a problem because
students from the two groups may interact given the proximity of the two schools (0.6 miles
apart).
HYPOTHESES:
Attributive Hypothesis 1a: At baseline, target participants consume on average 3.2
servings of fruit daily.
Associative Hypothesis 1b: Participation in Keep It Up Beet is associated with a 28%
increase in daily fruit consumption among target participants compared to the baseline.
A serving of fruit is defined by the USDA guidelines for each type of fruit including
fresh, frozen, canned, dried fruits, and fruit juices that are unsweetened.73 For example, one
serving is equal to 1 medium apple or ¾ cup of unsweetened orange juice. Fruit consumption is
a ratio variable defined as the number of servings of fruit consumed daily and its measurements
will be obtained from administering the 2005 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Diet and
Nutrition Questionnaire (DNQ) composed of 9 questions to estimate an individual’s fruit and
vegetable intake.74 Program participation is a ratio variable defined as student attendance of at
least 40% (15/36) in the Keep It Up Beet workshops over the duration of the program.75
Attendance will be tracked with an attendance sheet, in which the Health Educators will mark
present students. Participation is the IV and fruit consumption is the DV.
Attributive Hypothesis 2a: At baseline, target participants consume on average 2.1
18
Assignment 8
servings of vegetables daily.
increase in daily vegetable consumption among target participants compared to the baseline.
A serving of vegetables is defined by the USDA guidelines for each type of vegetable.73
For example, one serving is equal to ½ cup green beans or ½ cup of broccoli. Vegetable
consumption is a dependent ratio variable defined as the number of servings of vegetables
consumed daily. Vegetable consumption measurements will be obtained from administering the
2005 NHIS DNQ.74
Attributive Hypothesis 3a: At baseline, 35% of target participants consume 1 or more
servings SSB per day.
decrease in the number of target participants consuming 1 or more SSB per day compared to
baseline.
One SSB serving is defined as 12 ounces of any beverage with added sugar, including
but not limited to sodas, sweetened fruit juices, and sweetened teas.73 SSB consumption is a
dependent categorical variable defined in this context as whether or not 1 or more servings of
SSB are consumed throughout the day (consumed less than 1 serving of SSB daily vs. consumed
1 or more servings of SSB daily). SSB consumption will be measured using a 12-item beverage
consumption questionnaire.74
Attributive Hypothesis 4a: At baseline, target participants will have an average baseline
score of 56% on a nutrition/food knowledge questionnaire (meaning, 56% correct answers).
Associative Hypothesis 4b: Participation in Keep It Up Beet is associated with an 11%
increase on the nutrition/food knowledge questionnaire among target participants, increasing
19
Assignment 8
from a baseline score of 56% to 62%.
Nutrition/food knowledge is a dependent ratio variable defined by a numerical score on
a 21-item questionnaire about nutrition and food knowledge. The questionnaire is adapted from a
2010 study evaluating a school lunch initiative, modified to fit our specific research needs.40
Nutrition/food knowledge also has a conceptual definition and refers to a basic awareness and
understanding of the relationship between diet and health, the understanding that diet has short-
and long-term effects on health, and the knowledge necessary to make healthful dietary
decisions.
UNIT OF ANALYSIS:
Throughout Keep It Up Beet we will collect data at the individual level. This is the most
befitting unit of analysis for our study design since we are measuring fruit, vegetable, and SSB
consumption and nutrition/food knowledge for each individual student in order to capture their
personal progress. Keep It Up Beet will enlist the aid of biostatisticians to analyze pre- and
posttest scores to check for meaningful findings and determine whether the program successfully
fulfilled its intended goals and outcomes. The biostatisticians will determine the effects of
independent program variables on their related outcome variables (fruit, vegetable, and SSB
consumption and nutrition/food knowledge). Outcome variables will be operationalized by
nutrition knowledge test scores along with fruit, vegetable, and SSB consumption scores.
SAMPLING STRATEGY:
Our program Keep It Up Beet will use non-probability purposive sampling to obtain the
sample population. We will distribute questionnaires measuring fruit, vegetable, and SSB
consumption as well as nutrition knowledge surveys to all 5th grade students in the school. A
sample size of at least 60 students (30 5th-graders at Fishburn along with another 30 5th-graders at
20
Assignment 8
Huntington Park) will be sufficient to detect effect sizes at a 5% α-level, 80% power, and 95%
confidence interval for our dependent variables. A sample size of 60 students total should be
sufficient to detect statistically significant differences from baselines using 2 sample t-tests and
paired t-tests. To insure potential attrition, we will oversample by surveying all 5th grade
students (60 students) from Fishburn, and another 60 5th grade students from Huntington Park.
Oversampling (n=120) will ensure that we will have sufficient data, given that some students
may not participate, participate only partially, or not fit characteristics for the data we aim to
capture (for example, if they are not Latino).
Eligibility Criteria: All 5th grade students enrolled in Fishburn for the 2018-19
academic year will be our sampling frame recruited to participate in our program. Eligibility
criteria for students from the comparison school will be that they are enrolled in 5th grade during
the 2018-19 school year. Participants will be involved in our program from August 2018 to June
2019. We will gather attendance data at weekly workshops and consider pre- and posttest data
for children who attend 75% or more of the time throughout the entire program duration. All
students will proceed to participation in our program through passive consent, also assuming
consent from parents or guardians unless otherwise stated through a non-consent form.76
Response Rate: We anticipate a response rate over 92% based on a similar intervention
in East LA targeting primarily Latino children in 4th and 5th grades.77 Since their intervention
was an after school program which required students to stay beyond regular class hours, we
anticipate an even higher response rate for Keep It Up Beet seeing as our program is integrated
into the curriculum.
Recruitment Concerns: According to the biostatisticians’ report, a minimum of 30
students in each group would be sufficient to detect a significant result. We will be
21
Assignment 8
oversampling, with 60 students from each school to ensure that at least 30 kids from each school
will meet criteria for data inclusion. Our program does not pose significant recruitment barriers
because it is incorporated into the 5th grade curriculum during usual class hours. However, there
may be barriers to getting the school to agree to sacrificing class time and resources for the
program; therefore, it is imperative to address these concerns with the schools before the start of
the intervention. Another concern is inconsistent participation of students who may be absent
more than 25% of the time from our weekly gardening and nutrition workshops. If frequent
absence occurs, based on attendance sheets, we will disregard those data from the analysis.
Data Collection: Data collection will be carried out through administered questionnaires
regarding self-reported fruit, vegetable, and SSB consumption and nutrition/food knowledge.
These will be completed on paper-and-pencil forms under the supervision of trained Health
Educators as 5th grade students may require supervision with staying focused and completing the
survey. The Health Educators will be trained beforehand on administering these surveys. In-class
questionnaires, as opposed to take-home or emailed, minimize non-response and decrease errors
or misunderstandings about the questions since participants can ask for clarification while filling
out the forms.
Data will be collected before the first session, upon completion of the last session, and at
6-month and 12-month follow-up points. The same questionnaires will be delivered at each data
collection period, in both the intervention and comparison groups. The questionnaires will be
pretested for length, appropriateness to this group, intelligibility, and any other potential
oversights that could be detected by a small random sample of 5th graders at Fishburn prior to
the start of the intervention.
Fruit, Vegetable, and SSB Consumption Questionnaires: Fruit, vegetable, and SSB
22
Assignment 8
consumption will be measured using an adaptation of the Block Food Screeners for Ages 2-17,
2007 (BFS).78 Given that children at age 10 have the cognitive capacity to recall dietary
information, a self-report questionnaire is appropriate.79 Given that children in Keep It Up Beet
are at school most of the day, their parents are unable to minutely track their consumption
behavior, so asking the children to self-report directly will provide the most accurate
information.
The 41-item BFS is validated specifically for children between ages 2 and 17 and takes
only about 10-12 minutes. The BFS measures outcome variables by servings but also asks for
individual portion sizes, which allows us to calculate and standardize servings according to the
USDA guidelines.78 The questionnaire will ask children to recall what they ate the day before.
We will modify the existing BFS screener to utilize only the fruit, vegetable, and SSB related
questions from the BFS screener, since we are only interested in these variables. This includes
questions about consumption of fruits, vegetables, fruit juices, potatoes (including French fries),
and SSB.78 This survey has been validated and used effectively in LA Sprouts, another nutrition
and garden intervention targeting primarily Latino, 4th and 5th grade children in East LA.41 It
has also been validated in a separate study specifically measuring the validity of the screener in
children 10-17 years old.80
Nutrition/Food Knowledge Questionnaire: To measure nutrition knowledge before
intervention, upon termination of the intervention, and at 6-month and 1-year follow ups, the
Keep It Up Beet team will use a nutrition knowledge questionnaire adapted from a report by the
Dr. Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Center for Weight and Health, University of California at
Berkeley.40 Questionnaires or knowledge tests are the standard method in research studies
seeking to operationalize a nutrition knowledge change among youth.81 This specific
23
Assignment 8
questionnaire was selected because it originates from a large-scale study with goals similar to our
own. Both our current study and the 2010 report are measuring an improvement in nutrition
knowledge in 5th graders through the same modalities of gardening, integrated nutrition
education, and cooking.40 The report the Keep It Up Beet team is drawing from found
meaningful nutrition knowledge improvement after 1 year, which suggests that the Keep It Up
Beet team is likely to see a difference in our program’s scores being the same length of study.
One study from 2002 suggests that a carefully designed, validated questionnaire that
involves simply adding up correct answers can, in fact, be used to assess nutrition knowledge.40
However, they cautioned that unidimensional test scores do not illustrate a full picture of one’s
entire understanding of nutrition. Our measurement is somewhat restricted but given the time and
resource constraints of our small pilot study, using a short-adapted questionnaire is the most
feasible option.
While the questionnaire for the UC Berkeley study included a broad range of questions
related to food, the Keep It Up Beet team has narrowed it down to include questions which
pertain specifically to measuring nutrition knowledge, which together make up 21 questions in
total. Answers are either in the form of answering free response questions (i.e. “How many
servings of FV are healthy to eat each day?”) or multiple-choice questions (i.e. “Which food has
the most sugar?”). Total points earned (1 point per correct answer) will be translated to a
percentage score for analysis. Six-month and 1-year post-intervention follow-up questionnaires
will be mailed to the student’s home with postage for the return envelope. Follow-up
questionnaires will be incentivized by a raffle entry per each completed posttest, to win a
cookware or baking set.
The original questionnaire that we have modified was developed in collaboration with
24
Assignment 8
school staff and project partners in the Berkeley Unified School District School Lunch Initiative.
Curricular learning objectives provided the basis for the knowledge questions, which fit our
study as well seen as we are implementing a comparable curriculum. A minor limitation of using
their questionnaire is that their target population consisted of 12.8% Latino children, while ours
is 97% Latino, which may or may not undermine its applicability to our group, which will be
determined after pretesting the questionnaire with our target population. However, the
questionnaire was reviewed by school staff and pre-tested for wording among students of similar
age as the participants, making it a pertinent tool to use in our program.
ANALYTICAL PLAN:
The Program Manager and Health Educators will be responsible for data entry, data
cleaning, and analysis. A statistical analyst consultant will provide their input, run statistical
tests, and present analyses and results to the staff team. In order to increase generalizability to
our study population, results will be controlled by ethnicity to determine if there is an effect
among Latino children specifically.
Data Entry and Management: Health Educators will enter questionnaire data into a
password protected Microsoft Excel 2017 spreadsheet. The analyst will quantify and recode all
outcome ratio variables (fruit consumption, vegetable consumption, nutrition knowledge, SSB
consumption) for analysis using Stata, version 14.
Univariate Descriptive Analysis: The univariate analysis will summarize data (mean,
median, standard deviation, etc.) for each moderating variable for both intervention and
comparison group. Variables include fruit consumption, vegetable consumption, SSB
consumption, and nutrition knowledge scores. The analysis will address assertive hypotheses by
testing descriptive baseline data and address associative hypotheses by analyzing the association
25
Assignment 8
between the percentage of participants and the magnitude of the desired outcomes.
Statistical Tests: To analyze changes in outcome variables within the target participants,
the analysts will use a paired t-test to compare the change in fruit consumption, vegetable
consumption, and nutrition knowledge from baseline to follow-up. To analyze the changes in
consumption and nutrition knowledge compared to the comparison group, the analysts will use a
2-sample t-test. For our primary outcome, we will use multiple logistic regression to assess
whether exposure is associated with consumption of fruit and vegetables, consumption of SSB,
and score on a nutrition knowledge test.
Economic Cost Analysis: Keep It Up Beet’s total budget requires $48,803.55 for its one-
year program and the total number of 5th grade students at Fishburn is 60. The cost-per-student-
served analysis for Keep It Up Beet’s one-year program assumes that the number of students at
Fishburn stays constant during the academic year and concludes that the cost to deliver the Keep
It Up Beet program is approximately $813.39 per student receiving the intervention.
ETHICAL ISSUES:
The implementation and evaluation plan of Keep It Up Beet will be reviewed and
approved by the UCLA Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the LAUSD IRB. To protect
participant confidentiality, each individual will be given a non-identifiable alias in place of their
name on all evaluation documents. Only program staff members and data analysts will have
access to questionnaire and answers, despite anonymous responses. Attendance sheets, study
notes, and survey response sheets will be kept in a locked, private office file cabinet, accessible
only by the Health Educators, gardener, and Program Manager. Electronic data will be password
protected and accessible only by these relevant program staff.
Consent will be acquired passively, by participation. Incentives for participation are not
26
Assignment 8
so valuable or desirable that they should alter behavior nor lead to coercion. The study purpose,
timeline, and activities will be explained in layman’s terms to students and their families to
provide transparency to participants. Information will be provided regarding where and when
participants can expect to read about the results of the study and further implications. The
proposed activities and questions will not pose psychological or physical harm to any participant,
so the benefits outweigh any potential risk. Keep It Up Beet is a small-scale pilot study that aims
to test the efficacy of food education and workshops, therefore it would not be unethical to
withhold the intervention in the comparison group.
V. DISCUSSION
Implications: The success of Keep It Up Beet is determined by immediate outcomes of
increased fruit and vegetable consumption, increased nutrition/food knowledge, and decreased
SSB consumption among target participants. In the long term, target participants will benefit
from decreased risk of obesity, a condition associated with negative health outcomes such as
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, asthma, and mental health issues. Additionally, providing
nutrition, food, and gardening knowledge to youth grants them the opportunity to become
advocates for their health as they grow up, to fuel demand for and creation of a healthier food
environment. If Keep It Up Beet is successful, it should become a permanent course in the 5th
grade curriculum at Fishburn. It could also be expanded to other elementary schools in the
LAUSD system. If Keep It Up Beet fails, this may be due either to implementation failure or
theory failure, which we can determine based on the results of process evaluation. If all aspects
of the program run as intended, this would implicate theory failure, and the concepts forming the
basis of Keep It Up Beet would need to be reevaluated. If there is implementation failure, the
process evaluation will point to the activities within the program requiring adjustment.
27
Assignment 8
Limitations: Potential challenges in implementation failure include the possibility that
FV in the garden will not sufficiently grow, whether due to lapses in care, pests, weather, or
other unpredictable factors. Additionally, FV will not be ready to be harvested on schedule with
each FFT. To prepare for this, we have included in the budget funding to purchase FV for
produce boxes to be given away on those days when the garden will not produce enough FV. In
these situations, we will discuss with students the risks and fickle nature of produce cultivation
as part of the lesson. Another possible issue is if the school were to choose to cease integration of
the workshops in the curriculum. In this case, we would have to deliver workshops after school
hours, which would negatively impact recruitment and attendance, in turn impacting exposure to
the intervention. To avoid this, we will create a contract with Fishburn regarding agreement on
and cooperation with our intervention from the beginning. Additionally, we will be receptive to
feedback from teachers, administrators, and staff at Fishburn so that our program is in line with
their expectations and does not disrupt the students’ academic goals. The curriculum is designed
to take into account holidays and testing days that may require cancellation of our sessions. If the
workshop must be canceled for unexpected reasons, that week will simply be skipped, and the
resulting loss will be taken into account in the data analysis phase.
One major challenge of our intervention will be recruitment and continuing attendance of
both parents and students at FFT. If certain students are unable to attend these sessions,
occurring outside school hours, they will have less exposure to the intervention than their peers
who attend both in-school sessions and FFT sessions. Future studies should examine more
specifically the association between level of participation and desired outcomes. To address
parent recruitment and participation, we could change the type or increase the value of
incentives, change the time and location of the event to better accommodate parents’ schedules
28
Assignment 8
and connect with a trusted community member who has frequent contact with parents to better
spread the word about these events. Additionally, behavior change takes time, and immediate
evaluation may not adequately capture progressive changes in behavior. To address this, we are
delivering posttests at 6 and 12 months out to evaluate the effects of Keep It Up Beet beyond the
program's completion. The sample size (n=120) is too small to generalize results of this
intervention to the greater population. Additional studies, preferably with larger samples, would
be beneficial to increasing reliability of the intervention. It is important to note that any result of
this study will be associative and will not indicate causality. Therefore, further testing is crucial
to determining if improvements in the target group can be directly attributed to components of
the intervention. While we hope that this program can be used as a blueprint for similar
programs, it is important to note that its effects will not be directly applicable to other schools
due to the varying demographics of the LAUSD student body. Additional evaluation and
adjustment of the program will be necessary before Keep It Up Beet can be successful in other
LAUSD schools.
Sustainability: Long-term sustainability of the program beyond the 1-year intervention
period poses a challenge. Financially, program costs are $48,803.55 and as education funding is
sparse, these funds will need to continue to flow from an outside source. It is uncertain whether
there would be enough qualified volunteers to continue to lead these educational workshops
when considering time commitment and required skill level. Building partnerships with the
school principal, teachers, and community members who participate is essential so that the
existing garden may continue to be harnessed as a source of fresh FV for students and their
families. Gathering input from stakeholders, including parents, teachers, staff, and the principal,
is crucial for the development and maintenance of the program in the future.82 Involving parents,
29
Assignment 8
kids, and creating a space for discussion about the curriculum may encourage sustained
engagement and foster a sense of excitement in parents to continue to support the activities
initiated by the program. The garden beds will remain on the Fishburn campus, making the
continuation of the program more feasible.
Dissemination of Findings: Our findings will be disseminated to teachers, parents,
students, and administrators of Fishburn at School Site Council, Parental Involvement Policy
(PIP), Open House nights, and board meetings. Since other schools in the LAUSD system would
also benefit from these findings, study results will be presented to the LAUSD Board of
Education. As knowledge of the efficacy of the intervention could contribute to the literature on
preventing childhood obesity, our findings will be made available to other researchers through
peer-reviewed publications and relevant conferences.
30
Assignment 8
REFERENCES
1. WHO: Childhood Overweight And Obesity. WHO. 2017.
2. Caprio S, Daniels SR, Drewnowski A, Et Al. Influence Of Race, Ethnicity, And Culture
On Childhood Obesity: Implications For Prevention And Treatment: A Consensus
Statement Of Shaping America's Health And The Obesity Society. In: Diabetes Care.
Vol 31.2008:2211-2221.
3. The State Of Childhood Obesity - The State Of Obesity. 2018;
Https://Stateofobesity.Org/Childhood-Obesity-Trends/.
4. CDC. Childhood Obesity Causes & Consequences : Overweight & Obesity. CDC. 2017.
5. Pollock NK. Childhood Obesity, Bone Development, And Cardiometabolic Risk Factors.
Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2015;410:52-63.
6. Mohanan S, Tapp H, Mcwilliams A, Dulin M. Obesity And Asthma: Pathophysiology
And Implications For Diagnosis And Management In Primary Care. Exp Biol Med
(Maywood). 2014;239(11):1531-1540.
7. Hubert HB, Feinleib M, Mcnamara PM, Castelli WP. Obesity As An Independent Risk
Factor For Cardiovascular Disease: A 26-Year Follow-Up Of Participants In The
Framingham Heart Study. 1983.
8. Eckel RH, Krauss RM. American Heart Association Call To Action: Obesity As A Major
Risk Factor For Coronary Heart Disease. 1998.
9. Fielding J. Obesity And Related Mortality In Los Angeles County: All Cities And
Communities Health Report. In: County Of Los Angeles Public Health, Office Of
Epidemiology; 2011.
10. Rahman T, Cushing RA, Jackson RJ. Contributions Of Built Environment To Childhood
Obesity. Mt Sinai J Med. 2011;78(1):49-57.

31
Assignment 8
11. Beck AR. Psychosocial Aspects Of Obesity:.
Http://Dxdoiorg/101177/1942602x15619756. 2016.
12. Going SB, Et Al. Percent Body Fat And Chronic Disease Risk Factors In U.S. Children
And Youth. American Journal Of Preventive Medicine. 2011;41(4).
13. Karnik S, Kanekar A. Childhood Obesity: A Global Public Health Crisis. Int J Prev Med.
2012;3(1):1-7.
14. Wu N. Childhood Obesity And Academic Performance: The Role Of Working Memory |
Psychology. 2018.
15. Hammond RA, Levine R. The Economic Impact Of Obesity In The United States.
Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2010;3:285-295.
16. Shih M, Dumke KA, Et Al. The Association Between Community‐Level Economic
Hardship And Childhood Obesity Prevalence In Los Angeles. Pediatric Obesity.
2018;8(6):411-417.
17. Sallis JF, Glanz K. The Role Of Built Environments In Physical Activity, Eating, And
Obesity In Childhood. 2006;16(1).
18. Lobstein T, Jackson-Leach R, Moodie Ml, Et Al. Child And Adolescent Obesity: Part Of
A Bigger Picture. Lancet. 2015;385(9986):2510-2520.
19. Galvez MP, Hong L, Choi E, Liao L, Godbold J, Brenner B. Childhood Obesity And
Neighborhood Food Store Availability In An Inner City Community. Acad Pediatr.
2009;9(5):339-343.
20. Hilmers A, Hilmers DC, Dave J. Neighborhood Disparities In Access To Healthy Foods
And Their Effects On Environmental Justice. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(9):1644-
1654.
32
Assignment 8
21. Ogden CL, Carroll Md, Fryar CD, Flegal KM. Prevalence Of Obesity Among Adults
And Youth: United States, 2011-2014. Nchs Data Brief. 2015(219):1-8.
22. Los Angeles County Department Of Public Health. Key Indicators Of Health. In: Office
Of Health Assessment And Epidemiology, Ed2017.
23. Obesity Prevention Archives - L.A. Trust For Children's Health. 2018;
Https://Thelatrust.Org/Category/Obesity-Prevention/.
24. Babey SH, Wolstein J, Diamant AL, Bloom A, Goldstein H. Overweight And Obesity
Among Children By California Cities. In: Ucla Center For Health Policy Research And
California Center For Public Health Advocacy; 2010.
25. The Obesity Society. Your Weight And Diabetes. 2015;
Http://Www.Obesity.Org/Content/Weight-Diabetes.
26. Defining Childhood Obesity: Overweight & Obesity. CDC. 2018.
27. Startclass. Fishburn Avenue Elementary In Maywood, California. 2018; Http://Public-
Schools.Startclass.Com/L/10417/Fishburn-Avenue-Elementary-In-Maywood-California.
28. Perera T, Frei S, Frei B, Wong SS, Bobe G. Improving Nutrition Education In U.S.
Elementary Schools: Challenges And Opportunities. Journal Of Education And Practice.
2018;6(30):41-50.
29. Veugelers PJ, Fitzgerald AL. Effectiveness Of School Programs In Preventing Childhood
Obesity: A Multilevel Comparison. Http://Dxdoiorg/102105/Ajph2004045898. 2011.
30. Nixon CA, Moore HJ, Douthwaite W, Et Al. Identifying Effective Behavioural Models
And Behaviour Change Strategies Underpinning Preschool- And School-Based Obesity
Prevention Interventions Aimed At 4-6-Year-Olds: A Systematic Review. Obes Rev.
2012;13 Suppl 1:106-117.
33
Assignment 8
31. Savage JS, Fisher JO, Birch LL. Parental Influence On Eating Behavior: Conception To
Adolescence. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35(1):22-34.
32. Wright K, Norris K, Newman Giger J, Suro Z. Improving Healthy Dietary Behaviors,
Nutrition Knowledge, And Self-Efficacy Among Underserved School Children With
Parent And Community Involvement. Child Obes. 2012;8(4):347-356.
33. Childhood Obesity Prevention Programs: Comparative Effectiveness Review And Meta-
Analysis - Abstract. Europe PMC. 2013.
34. Jeffery RW, Drewnowski A, Epstein LH, Et Al. Long-Term Maintenance Of Weight
Loss: Current Status. Health Psychol. 2000;19(1s):5-16.
35. County Of Los Angeles Public Health. Early Childhood Obesity Prevention Initiative. In:
Choose Health LA!; 2013.
36. Draper C, Freedman D. Review And Analysis Of The Benefits, Purposes, And
Motivations Associated With Community Gardening In The United States.
Http://Dxdoiorg/101080/107054222010519682. 2010.
37. Thai C, Prelip M, Erausquin JT, Slusser W. Lessons Learned From The Development
And Implementation Of A Parent Nutrition Education Program With Low-Income Latina
Mothers In An Urban School District Setting. Vol 432012.
38. Strategies To Prevent Obesity And Other Chronic Diseases: The CDC Guide To
Strategies To Increase The Consumption Of Fruits And Vegetables. In: Services
Ausdohah, Ed: Centers For Disease Control And Prevention; 2011.
39. Bender M, Nader P, Kennedy C, Gahagan S. A Culturally Appropriate Intervention To
Improve Health Behaviors In Hispanic Mother–Child Dyads.
Https://Homeliebertpubcom/Chi. 2013.
34
Assignment 8
40. Rauzon SW, M. Studer, N. Crawford, P. Changing Students’ Knowledge, Attitudes And
Behavior In Relation To Food: An Evaluation Of The School Lunch Initiative. In.
University Of California At Berkeley, University Of California At Los Angeles: The Dr.
Robert C. And Veronica Atkins Center For Weight And Health, University Of California
At Berkeley; 2010.
41. Davis JV. Cook, LT. Gyllenhammer, LE. Gatto, NM. LA Sprouts: A Gardening,
Nutrition, And Cooking Intervention For Latino Youth Improves Diet And Reduces
Obesity. Journal Of American Dietetics Association. 2011;111(8):1224-1230.
42. Lee S, Reicks M. Environmental And Behavioral Factors Are Associated With The
Calcium Intake Of Low-Income Adolescent Girls. Journal Of The American Dietetic
Association. 2003;103(11):1526-1529.
43. Special Report: Racial And Ethnic Disparities In Obesity - Latino Communities. 2018;
Https://Stateofobesity.Org/Disparities/Latinos/.
44. Dumka LE, Garza CA, Roosa MW, Stoerzinger HD. Recruitment And Retention Of
High-Risk Families Into A Preventive Parent Training Intervention. Springerlink. 2018.
45. Heinrichs N, Bertram H, Kuschel A, Hahlweg K. Parent Recruitment And Retention In A
Universal Prevention Program For Child Behavior And Emotional Problems: Barriers To
Research And Program Participation. Prev Sci. 2005;6(4):275-286.
46. Cerin E, Barnett A, Baranowski T. Testing Theories Of Dietary Behavior Change In
Youth Using The Mediating Variable Model With Intervention Programs. Journal Of
Nutrition Education And Behavior. 2009;41(5):309-318.
35
Assignment 8
47. Romano V, Scott I. Using Health Belief Model To Reduce Obesity Amongst African
American And Hispanic Populations. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences.
2014;159:707-711.
48. Sankaré IC, Bross R, Brown AF, Jones LF, Porter C, Vargas R. Strategies To Build Trust
And Recruit African American And Latino Community Residents For Health Research:
A Cohort Study. Clinical And Translational Science. 2018;8(5):412-420.
49. Gallagher-Thompson D, Solano N, Coon Dt, Areán P. Recruitment And Retention Of
Latino Dementia Family Caregivers In Interven ion Research: Issues To Face, Lessons
To Learn. The Gerontologist. 2018;43(1):45-51.
50. Daminger AH, Barrows A. Wright J. Poverty Interrupted: Applying Behavioral Science
To The Context Of Chronic Scarcity. New York: Ideas. 2015.
51. Merrick E, Hodgkin D, Horgan C. Incentives To Shape Health Behaviors: How Can We
Make Them More Person-Centered? Http://Dxdoiorg/101080/155552402014868721.
2014.
52. Pavetti L, Stanley M. Using Incentives To Increase Engagement And Persistence In Two-
Generation Programs: A Review Of The Literature With Key Insights. Building Better
Programs. 2016.
53. School FE. Fishburn Elementary School Parental Involvement 2017-18. In. East Los
Angeles: Fishburn Elementary School; 2018.
54. LAUSD Approved Plant List. In: Los Angeles Unified School District; 2012.
55. Cyril S, Smith BJ, Possamai-Inesedy A, Renzaho A. Exploring The Role Of Community
Engagement In Improving The Health Of Disadvantaged Populations: A Systematic
Review. In: Glob Health Action. Vol 8.2015.
36
Assignment 8
56. Manios Y, Moschandreas J, Hatzis C, Kafatos A. Evaluation Of A Health And Nutrition
Education Program In Primary School Children Of Crete Over A Three-Year Period.
Preventive Medicine. 1999;28(2):149-159.
57. Brownell KD, Kaye FS. A School-Based Behavior Modification, Nutrition Education,
And Physical Activity Program For Obese Children. The American Journal Of Clinical
Nutrition. 2018;35(2):277-283.
58. Mcaleese JD, Rankin Ll. Garden-Based Nutrition Education Affects Fruit And Vegetable
Consumption In Sixth-Grade Adolescents. Journal Of The American Dietetic
Association. 2007;107(4):662-665.
59. Reinehr T, Temmesfeld M, Kersting M, De Sousa G, Toschke A. Four-Year Follow-Up
Of Children And Adolescents Participating In An Obesity Intervention Program.
International Journal Of Obesity. 2007;31.
60. Parcel GS, Edmundson E, Perry CL, Et Al. Measurement Of Self‐Efficacy For Diet‐
Related Behaviors Among Elementary School Children. Journal Of School Health.
2018;65(1):23-27.
61. Cooking With Kids. Cooking With Kids. 2018; Https://Cookingwithkids.Org/, 2018.
62. Caballero B, Clay T, Davis SM, Et Al. Pathways: A School-Based, Randomized
Controlled Trial For The Prevention Of Obesity In American Indian Schoolchildren. Am
J Clin Nutr. 2003;78(5):1030-1038.
63. Eertmans A, Baeyens F, Van Den Bergh O. Food Likes And Their Relative Importance
In Human Eating Behavior: Review And Preliminary Suggestions For Health Promotion.
Health Educ Res. 2001;16(4):443-456.
37
Assignment 8
64. Gibson EL, Wardle J, Watts CJ. Fruit And Vegetable Consumption, Nutritional
Knowledge And Beliefs In Mothers And Children. Appetite. 1998;31(2):205-228.
65. Brown R, Ogden J. Children’s Eating Attitudes And Behaviour: A Study Of The
Modelling And Control Theories Of Parental Influence. Health Education Research.
2004;19(3):261-271.
66. Crockett SJ, Mullis RM, Perry CL. Parent Nutrition Education: A Conceptual Model.
Journal Of School Health. 1988;58(2):53-57.
67. Golan M, Crow S. Parents Are Key Players In The Prevention And Treatment Of
Weight-Related Problems. Nutrition Reviews. 2004;62(1):39-50.
68. Christian MS, Evans CE, Nykjaer C, Hancock N, Cade JE. Evaluation Of The Impact Of
A School Gardening Intervention On Children’s Fruit And Vegetable Intake: A
Randomised Controlled Trial. International Journal Of Behavioral Nutrition And
Physical Activity. 2014;11(1):99.
69. Bere E, Klepp K. Changes In Accessibility And Preferences Predict Children's Future
Fruit And Vegetable Intake. International Journal Of Behavioral Nutrition And Physical
Activity. 2005;2(1):15.
70. U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services Nioh, National Cancer Institute. Theory
At A Glance - A Guide For Health Promotion Practice. In. 2 Ed2005.
71. County Of Los Angeles Department Of Public Health Community Health Assessment
2015. In: Los Angeles Department Of Public Health; 2015.
72. Grembowski DE. The Practice Of Health Program Evaluation. 2nd Ed: Sage
Publications, Inc; 2015.
73. The Food Guide Pyramid. In: Agriculture USDA, Ed1996.
38
Assignment 8
74. Hamilton EA. The Phenx Toolkit: Get The Most From Your Measures. In. Vol 174.
March 14, 2018, Ver. 22.2 Ed: American Journal Of Epidemiology; 2011:253-260.
75. Beets M, Beighle A, Erwin H, Huberty J. After-School Program Impact On Physical
Activity And Fitness: A Meta-Analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(6):527-537.
76. Blom-Hoffman J, Leff SS, Franko DL, Weinstein E, Beakley K, Power TJ. Consent
Procedures And Participation Rates In School-Based Intervention And Prevention
Research: Using A Multi-Component, Partnership-Based Approach To Recruit
Participants. School Ment Health. 2009;1(1):3-15.
77. Martinez LC, Gatto NM, Spruijt-Metz D, Davis JN. Design And Methodology Of The
LA Sprouts Nutrition, Cooking And Gardening Program For Latino Youth: A
Randomized Controlled Intervention. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;42:219-227.
78. Questionnaires And Screeners: Food Frequency Questionnaires And Screeners For
Children And Adolescents. 2018; Https://Nutritionquest.Com/Assessment/List-Of-
Questionnaires-And-Screeners/.
79. Baranowski T, Domel SB. A Cognitive Model Of Children's Reporting Of Food Intake.
The American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition. 1994;59(1):212s-217s.
80. Hunsberger M, O'malley J, Norris C. Relative Validation Of Block Kids Food Screener
For Dietary Assessment In Children And Adolescents. Maternal And Child Nutrition.
2012.
81. Robinson-O'brien R, Story M, Heim S. Impact Of Garden-Based Youth Nutrition
Intervention Programs: A Review. Journal Of The American Dietetic Association.
2009;109(2):273-280.
39
Assignment 8
82. Davis J, Spaniol M, Somerset S. Sustenance And Sustainability: Maximizing The Impact
Of School Gardens On Health Outcomes. Public Health Nutrition. 2018;18(13):2358-
2367.
40
Assignment 8
APPENDIX A: TIMELINE
41
Assignment 8
APPENDIX B: LESSON PLAN
42
Assignment 8
APPENDIX C: LOGIC MODEL
43
Assignment 8
APPENDIX D: BUDGET
Line-Item Budget
Organization Name: UCLA
Proposal Title: Keep it Up Beet
Project Period: June 15, 2018 – June 15, 2019
Proposed Expenses Annual Salary % FTE Amount
Personnel
Full Time Personnel
Program Manager $ 75,000.00 0.3 $ 22,500.00
Benefits and Taxes @
35% $ 7,875.00
Total Personnel $ 30,375.00
Non-Personnel
Contracted Personnel
Garden Educator $ 3,700.00
Statistician $ 3,200.00
Stipends
Health Educator (2) $ 6,000.00
Program Costs
Nutrition Workshop
Materials $ 1,414.71
44
Assignment 8
Ingredients $ 6,240.00
Garden Workshop
Materials $ 444.19
Fruits and Vegetables $ 720.00
Recruitment
Materials
Incentives $ 995.40
Flyers $ 16.20
Operating Expenses
Local Travel $ 2,490.65
Site Compensation $ 1,000.00
Office Supplies $ 150.00
ServSafe
Certification $ 45.00
Evaluation Expenses
Questionnaire - paper $ 129.60
Pencils $ 10.35
Envelopes $ 47.96
Stamps $ 112.80
45
Assignment 8
Posttest Incentives $ 175.00
Total Non-Personnel $ 13,991.86
SUBTOTAL: Direct
Costs $ 44,366.86
Indirect Costs @ 10
% $ 4,436.69
GRAND TOTAL $ 48,803.55
46
Assignment 8
APPENDIX E: BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

Personnel Expenses:
Program Manager (PM): The PM will be a Full-Time UCLA affiliate and will oversee and run a
majority of the program and its activities. Duties will include hiring and managing program
team, curriculum design, program management, budget management, report writing and
additional administrative tasks. The PM will also host monthly FFT sessions, meet with the
Parent Committee and school principal once a month, and is expected to foster good
relationships with parent participants (i.e. in person, emails, phone calls).
Qualifications: MPH; minimum years of experience in community health education and
program planning for the Latino population; bilingual (English/Spanish).
Salary: The average public health program manager salary is $75,000. The project
manager will work 30% FTE on this project for 1 full year. ($75,000 x 30%) = $22,500
Employee Benefits and Taxes: Benefits and taxes have been calculated at 35% for full
time employees which includes FICA and federal withholding, SDI, state withholding,
workers’ compensation, and health and dental benefits. The benefits for this project total
$7,875.
Non-personnel expenses:
Gardener: The gardener will create the gardening education curricula by adapting the LA Sprouts
gardening curricula and using their own horticultural knowledge. The gardener will teach weekly
gardening sessions, maintain the 6 garden beds on school grounds throughout the duration of the
program, obtain necessary materials and tools for gardening, and keep in contact with partners
who provide resources.
Qualifications: Master Gardener certification (or pursuing certification), as this
certification provides complete horticultural training as well as ensuring prior community

47
Assignment 8
engagement experience; bilingual (English/Spanish).
Rate: Gardener will be hired as a contractor (3 hours/week during school year x 36
weeks) + 40 hours curriculum planning = 148 hours @ $25.00/hr = $3,700
Health Educators (HE): HEs will work with program manager to develop nutrition education
curriculum. Health Educators will lead interactive nutrition education and cooking sessions, and
assist at FFT, as well as assist program manager with recruitment and outreach activities as
needed, and perform evaluation activities such as data collection, data entry, data cleaning, and
preparation and delivery of data analysis.
Qualifications: Current enrollment in an MPH program; BS degree in Nutrition; bilingual
(English/Spanish).
Stipend: Educators will be paid a stipend based upon expected 1.5-3 hours per week for
11 months at $3,000 each ($3,000 x 2 educators = $6,000).
Statistical Analyst: A statistical analyst will be hired as a consultant to provide input, run
statistical tests, and prepare statistical analyses for program staff.
Qualifications: Minimum Master’s degree in biostatistics or related; minimum 3 years
related experience.
Rate: Statistical analyst will be hired as a contractor. We estimate analysis will take up to
a total of 80 hours over the course of the evaluation process. According to the Bureau for
Labor Statistics, the average rate for a statistician is $40/hr. ($40/hr x 80 hours = $3200)
Program Costs
Nutrition Materials
Materials totaling $1,414.71 necessary for nutrition education workshops include:
Rolling cart to store and transport materials, and utilize as a demonstration table during
48
Assignment 8
education sessions $500.00
Hot plate for use as cooktop in demonstrations $30.00
Cookware (4 mixing bowls, 4 whisks, 4 measuring cups, 4 measuring set, 2 mortar &
pestle, 2 spatula set) $272.00
Eating sets (60 students x 36 sessions = 2160 sets) + (120 caregivers x 8 FFT = 960 sets)
= 3120 sets
Utensils (2 boxes of 1800 utensil sets x $73.96) = $147.92
Plates (7 boxes of 480 plates x $22.57) = $157.99
Napkins (8 boxes of 400 napkins x $6.55) = $52.40
Curriculum that meets common core standards to be adapted for intervention; purchased
online $60.00
Worksheets for nutrition education workshops (1 worksheet at $0.09/sheet x 60 students
x 36 sessions) = $194.40
Ingredients
Ingredients for use in all cooking workshops (produce, grains, beans, oil, etc) at
$2.00/child and $2.00/caregiver. ($2.00/child x 60 children x 36 workshops = 4,320) +
($2.00/caregiver x 120 caregivers x 8 FFT = 1,920) = $6,240.00
Garden Materials
Materials totaling $444.19 necessary for gardening workshops include:
Tools (20 Trowels, 6 watering cans) $178.88
Seeds (18 packs x $3/pack) = $54.00
Soil ($3.32/cu. ft x 90 cu. ft) = $299.10
Picnic table supplies (3 hammers, wood, nuts, bolts, screws, washers) $265.31
49
Assignment 8
Fruits and Vegetables
It is expected that take-home boxes will need to be supplemented with purchased FV, as
garden will not produce enough FV for all FFT events. This includes the first 2 FFT
events, as garden will not yet have produced sufficient FV, and 2 additional anticipated
FFT throughout the year. We anticipate these costs at ($3/box x 60 boxes x 4 FFT) =
$720.00
Recruitment Materials
Incentives are vital to participant recruitment and retention. Incentive costs totaling
$995.40 necessary for raffle prizes for FFT, and prizes for award celebration include:
Gift cards to Superior Grocery Store (4 cards/FFT x 8FFT x $20) = $640.00
Steel Cookware Set (2 sets x $130) = $260.00
Kitchenaid 11-piece Baking Set (2 sets x $45) = $90.00
Print paper certificates for award celebration (0.09/sheet x 60 students) = $5.40
Flyers: Print flyers for recruitment ($0.09/sheet x 180 sheets) = $16.20
Operating Expenses:
Local Travel: Travel has been calculated at $0.545 per mile per 2018 IRS standards; one
round trip between UCLA and Fishburn is 35 miles. It is estimated that the educators will travel
1260 miles in total each for nutrition education sessions, gardener will travel 1800 miles for
nutrition education and garden maintenance, and program manager will travel 875 miles for FFT,
networking, site visits, and outreach, for a total of 4,570 miles. (4,570 miles x $0.545/mile =
$2,490.65).
Site Compensation: Intervention will take place at Fishburn Elementary and will require
utilization of existing raised beds, shed space for gardening tools, and storage space for rolling
50
Assignment 8
cart. Additionally, presence on site may add to Fishburn Elementary School’s overhead costs. To
compensate for added burden to site and site expenses, will provide compensation to Fishburn
Elementary at $1000.
Office Supplies: Miscellaneous office supplies (pens, pencils, highlighters, notebooks,
post-its, paper clips, staples, etc.) have been estimated at $150.
ServSafe Certification: ServSafe Certification is required for all staff (2 health educators,
1 program manager) who will be handling food items to be served to participants, totaling
($15/certification x 3 staff) = $45.00.
Evaluation Expenses:
Print paper questionnaires for surveying 4 times, at baseline, immediate posttest, 6-month
posttest, and 12-month posttest (0.09/sheet x 3 sheets per questionnaire = $0.27 per
questionnaire; $0.27/questionnaire x 120 students = $32.40 per survey session;
$32.40/survey x 4 total survey sessions = $129.60)
Pencils, 96 pack = $10.35
Envelopes, 120 pack for posttests, includes one envelope to send and one return envelope
per participant (2 envelopes/participant x 120 participants = 240 envelopes; 240
packs/120 per pack = 2 packs; $11.99/pack x 2 packs = $23.98 per posttest;
$23.98 per posttest x 2 posttests = $47.96)
Stamps ($0.47/stamp x 240 envelopes = $112.80)
Raffle prizes, totaling $175.00:
Steel Cookware Set (1 set x $130) = $130.00
Kitchen aid 11-piece Baking Set (1 set x $45) = $45.00
Contractor (health educators, statistical analyst) time for delivering and analyzing
51
Assignment 8
evaluation included above.
Indirect Costs:
Indirect, administrative costs have been calculated at 10% of total direct costs
($44,366.86 x 10%) for a total of $4,436.99.
52
Assignment 8
APPENDIX F: BIOSTATISTICIAN CONSULTANT REPORT

Background:
“Keep it Up Beet: More Fruits and Veggies, Happier Kids” is a Community Health Sciences
project with the primary goal of reducing dietary risk factors for obesity in Latino 5th graders of
low socioeconomic status (SES) attending elementary school in East LA. Dietary risk factors for
obesity will be measured through fruit, vegetable and sugar sweet beverage (SSB) consumption
as well as knowledge of nutrition through a questionnaire designed by the researchers.
Objectives:
The objective of this study is to decrease dietary risk factors for obesity in school children. The
intervention consists of two main components: parental participation and workshops. The
workshops include educating students on good nutritional habits and teaching them gardening
with as much parental involvement as possible. The investigators will measure these risk factors
and compare results in the group that receives the intervention (through pre and posttests) as well
as compare results with the control group that receives no intervention. Ultimately, they hope
that the intervention will (1) increase fruit and vegetable consumption, knowledge of nutrition
and parental participation and (2) decrease SSB consumption.
Study Design:
The investigators describe the study design as a, “quasi-experimental, with a pre and posttest
nonequivalent comparison group, controlling for the testing effect and posttests.” The control
group will not receive the intervention and will consist of a 5th grade class at another elementary
school in East LA comprised primarily of Latinos of low SES that receive a comparable level of
education and enrichment programs. The researchers assume (1) dietary habits will not
spontaneously improve drastically, (2) students will consistently attend school (3) the control
group will have no interaction with the group that receives the intervention and (4) attrition is
53
Assignment 8
unlikely because the intervention will be integrated into the school curriculum. The investigators
plan to do 6-month and 12-month follow ups and measure parental participation, fruit, vegetable,
and SSB consumption and knowledge of nutrition through a questionnaire. The researchers
establish baselines for these variables and hope to see beneficial changes in pre and post
examinations within the group that receives the intervention as well as compared to the control
group.
Statistical Methods:
The researchers make baseline measurements for fruit, vegetable and SSB consumption and
questionnaire score based on nutrition questionnaire based on previous research/literature.
Measurements for fruit, vegetable and SSB consumption are measured in serving size, as defined
by the USDA guidelines. They hope to see a 28% increase, 33% increase and 53% decrease,
respectively in these consumption groups as well as an 11% increase in nutritional knowledge
score.
• Because the researchers want to see a percentage change in serving size, a t-test would be
used to analyze the results. Specifically, to analyze changes in consumption within the
group that receives the intervention, we would use a paired t-test and to study changes in
consumption compared to the control group, we would use a 2-sample t-test.
Sample Size and power considerations:
The researchers claim their study is a pilot study, so they will do this intervention on one 5th
grade class (n = 60 students). They also provide us with a desired effect size (a percentage
change) for fruit, vegetable and SSB consumption as well as knowledge score. The investigators
want to see a 28% increase in fruit consumption, a 33% increase in vegetable consumption, a
53% decrease in SSB consumption and an 11% increase in nutrition knowledge score.
54
Assignment 8
We consider the sample size calculation in the following way:
n=(Z1-α2+Z1-β)2*CVPC(1-PC)2
where
• CV=σμ≈sX , the coefficient of variation (a useful way to compare variation between two
groups). Because we do not have actual data, we must estimate σ and the CV. A typical
CV is 30%.
• PC represents the percentage change (the effect size).
• We assume α=0.05 and Power=1-β=0.8, so Z1-α2=1.96 and Z1-β=0.84.
The following table shows how the sample size changes for each consumption group as we vary
the CV.
CV N (Fruit N (Vegetable N (SSB Knowledge
Consumption) Consumption) Consumption) PC = 11%
PC = 28% PC = 33% PC = 53% increase
increase increase Decrease
10% 6 subjects 6 subjects 7 subjects 10 subjects
30%* 16 subjects 16 subjects 21 subjects 28 subjects
*Typical values for CV are around 30%.

In short, to detect these effect sizes at a 5% α level and 80% power, a sample size of 60 for each
group should be sufficient (assuming all students in the class participate).
55

Assignment8 Group5

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Assignment8 Group5

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Group 5, Angela Cho, Emily Cornell, Enya Meng, Julia Feygelman

FFT: Family Fun Time

FV: Fruits and Vegetables

HBM: Health Belief Model

HE: Health Educator

LA: Los Angeles

LAUSD: Los Angeles Unified School District

PM: Program Manager

SES: Socioeconomic Status

SCT: Social Cognitive Theory

located in Maywood, East LA as it is comprised of low-income Latino children who are

especially vulnerable to risk factors for obesity.

Who is Affected? Individuals in low-income communities in America have shown to be

Relative Disparity in Low-income Latino Children: Nationally, the highest prevalence

of childhood obesity is among Latinos (21.9%), followed by African Americans (19.5%),

intervening on the earlier stages of life poses as a priority.23-26

to be effective in reducing the risk of obesity in low-income Latino children.32

Past Interventions: Successful interventions in highly impacted communities were

participation from community or family members.18,29,30,33 Government agencies and initiatives

interventions in Latino communities have been successful in promoting consumption, choice,

and availability of FV, self-efficacy in preparation of healthy meals, and community

engagement, organization, and empowerment.36

Needs Assessment: An extensive literature review of studies will provide statistics

content and structure our program curricula.

consequences. By focusing on 5th graders in a primarily Latino, low-income school community,

health outcomes in East LA.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Fishburn located in East LA.

include increasing FV consumption. Replacing energy-dense foods with lower-calorie, high-

Consumption of FV increased, respectively, by 28% and 33%, in an obesity prevention program

who self-report consumption of 1 or more servings of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) a day

intervention programs to be the most successful in decreasing SSB intake in children.19 We

12-17 showed a 66% reduction in SSB intake.

nutrition knowledge by 11% on a systematized questionnaire compared to baseline scores (from

14.6/26 to 16.2/26 points).

and its impact on obesity.32,41

participation, we aim to have an average of 45 students with a parental attendance at FFT.

Rationale: Recruiting parents to FFT is an essential pillar of the intervention, crucial to

from previous studies with similar recruitment and retention strategies.44,45

and children to aid them in choosing healthier food options.

RECRUITMENT STRATEGY: To encourage and recruit parent involvement in

strategy corresponds with objective 4.

systematic reinforcement of desired behaviors by utilizing small incentives on a regular basis.52

site near the beds.

corresponds with objectives 1 and 3.

EDUCATION STRATEGY: Implement nutrition education and gardening sessions for

the 5th graders at Fishburn.

Rationale: Nutrition education geared towards children has shown to be a vital

in elementary school-aged children has been shown to be a useful instrument in evaluating

education strategy corresponds with objectives 1, 2, and 3.

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES STRATEGY: Host FFT once per month to

encourage family participation in nutrition education.

Rationale: Parents/guardians are important indirect targets in the reduction of childhood

ACCESS STRATEGY: Promote fruit and vegetable consumption by providing students

with fresh FV from school garden to minimize barriers to consumption.

access strategy corresponds with objectives 1 and 4.

education lesson plan using “Cooking with Kids” is pictured in Appendix B.

Gardening Education: The gardener will design components of interactive gardening

depend on the success and growth of the garden beds.

raffle to win the grand prize at the end of the year.

two recipients of the grand prize, a steel cooking ware set.

III. PROCESS EVALUATION

(number of parents attending/number of anticipated parents attending) can be calculated to