The development and use of an assessment tool to capture changes in the food pantry nutrition environment and system of food distribution.

Clicks: 320
ID: 58689
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #13 of 52 articles by views in translational behavioral medicine

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Rural food pantries aim to improve food access but low-quality nutritional environments and prescribed systems of food distribution may limit these efforts. Voices for Food (VFF) is a six-state U.S. Department of Agriculture-funded intervention, including community coaching and a VFF Food Pantry Toolkit to guide food pantries in transitioning to a healthier nutritional environment and a food distribution system based on client choice and support.The purpose of the article was to create a novel tool (MyChoice Scorecard) to assess the food pantry environment, including client choice, and to use the tool to quantify change in VFF intervention pantries compared with comparison pantries longitudinally over the 3-year study period. Food pantries in rural, high-poverty counties in six Midwestern states participated in a longitudinal, matched treatment and comparison study. Pantries were assigned to treatment (n = 12) or comparison (n = 12) group. A MyChoice Scorecard was completed pre-, mid- and post-intervention. Mixed models were generated with MyChoice Scorecard score as the outcome and included main effects for intervention group and time since pre-intervention visit. Pre-intervention, MyChoice scores did not differ significantly between intervention and comparison pantries (8.5 ± 1.5 vs. 9.1 ± 1.5, p = .19). Marginal mean values for MyChoice Scorecard score differed significantly between treatment and comparison groups at both mid-intervention (14.6 ± 1.4 vs. 10.8 ± 1.4, p = .05) and post-intervention (21.8 ± 1.2 vs. 11.8 ± 1.2, p < .001). The MyChoice Scorecard, either alone or as part of the VFF intervention, can be used by community public health professionals, such as Extension staff, to document and facilitate meaningful change in the nutritional environment of food pantries.
Reference Key
mccormack2019thetranslational Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors McCormack, Lacey A;Eicher-Miller, Heather A;Remley, Dan T;Moore, Lindsay A;Stluka, Suzanne R;
Journal translational behavioral medicine
Year 2019
DOI
10.1093/tbm/ibz114
URL
Keywords
environment nutrition intervention longitudinal food pantry guided client choice

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.