Community organized food and nutrition education: participation, attitudes and nutritional risk in seniors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Evergreen Action Nutrition (EAN) is a health promotion program designed to facilitate relatively healthy members of a seniors recreation center to maintain their nutritional health as they age. A main goal of this project was to demonstrate the feasibility and relevance of using the community organization approach to develop a nutrition education program for seniors. METHODS: Using the current membership list, seniors were randomly selected to receive a mailed baseline (n=247) questionnaire. A follow-up survey (n=251) was sent out to randomly selected members three years later to determine participation in EAN and reported behavior change. Although not the same individuals, responses were compared to baseline to determine changes in nutritional risk. Items from the Diet and Health Knowledge survey were compared by EAN participation. RESULTS: The program had a large reach with 162 survey respondents (64.5%) reporting some level of participation and 51% reporting "frequent" participation. Use of informal forms of education predominated (e.g. displays). Significant differences were found between baseline and follow-up for risk attributed to low intake of fruits and vegetables and frequency of eating, with EAN participants having reduced risk of low fruit and vegetable intake. Those participating in formal education (e.g. food workshops) reported more frequent changes in food practices than those participating in informal activities. EAN participants appear to have more healthy nutrition attitudes/beliefs. CONCLUSION: The community organization approach to program planning and delivery leads to the development of diverse and appropriate nutrition education activities for seniors. Informal and formal health promotion activities can be successfully implemented in recreation centers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".