Impact of Baltimore Healthy Eating Zones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the impact of a youth-targeted multilevel nutrition intervention in Baltimore City. The study used a clustered randomized design in which 7 recreation centers and 21 corner stores received interventions and 7 additional recreation centers served as comparison. The 8-month intervention aimed to increase availability and selection of healthful foods through nutrition promotion and education using point-of purchase materials such as posters and flyers in stores and interactive sessions such as taste test and cooking demonstrations. Two hundred forty-two youth-caregiver dyads residing in low-income areas of Baltimore City recruited from recreation centers were surveyed at baseline using detailed instruments that contained questions about food-related psychosocial indicators (behavioral intentions, self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and knowledge), healthful food purchasing and preparation methods, and anthropometric measures (height and weight). The Baltimore Healthy Eating Zones intervention was associated with reductions in youth body mass index percentile (p = .04). In subgroup analyses among overweight and obese girls, body mass index for age percentile decreased significantly in girls assigned to the intervention group (p = .03) and in girls with high exposure to the intervention (p = .013), as opposed to those in comparison or lower exposure groups. Intervention youth significantly improved food-related outcome expectancies (p = .02) and knowledge (p < .001). The study results suggest that the Baltimore Healthy Eating Zones multilevel intervention had a modest impact in reducing overweight or obesity among already overweight low-income African American youth living in an environment where healthful foods are less available. Additional studies are needed to determine the relative impact of health communications and environmental interventions in this population, both alone and in combination.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".