Development and validation of the Full Restaurant Evaluation Supporting a Healthy (FRESH) Dining Environment Audit

Horacek, Tanya; Yildirim, Elif Dede; Simon, Marlei; Bredbenner, Carol Byrd; White, Adrienne A.; Shelnutt, Karla P.; Olfert, Melissa D.; Morrell, Jesse Stabile; Mathews, Anne; Kidd, Tandalayo; Kattelmann, Kendra; Franzen‐Castle, Lisa; Colby, Sarah; Brown, Onikia

doi:10.1080/19320248.2018.1434103

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Direct data was collected as part of the GetFruved RCT and shared with eB4CAST researchers to create the infographic report. Direct data included the Health Campus Environmental Audit (HCEA) that evaluated campus policy, dining, and recreation [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ], the College Environmental Perceptions Survey (CEPS) that determined student and administrator perceptions of the healthfulness of their campus [ 32 ], Student and Administrator’s Readiness to Change which evaluated how ready the campus is to make behavioral and environmental change [ 24 ], Student and Administrator’s Priorities that examined the top five priorities for change on campus [ 24 ], and a Wellness Report card which evaluated campus physical activity, fruit, and vegetable consumption, sleep, and stress compared to national average [ 23 , 24 ]. Following the intervention, pre and post data were shown on the eB4CAST report for all scales to show change made through the GetFruved intervention.…”

Section: Tool Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

eB4CAST: An Evidence-Based Tool to Promote Dissemination and Implementation in Community-Based, Public Health Research

Olfert

Hagedorn

Barr

et al. 2018

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

eB4CAST, evidence-Based forecast C-capture, A-assemble, S-sustain, T-timelessness (eB4CAST), framework was developed from existing dissemination and implementation (D & I) constructs as a dissemination tool to promote community-based program usability and future application in targeted populations. eB4CAST captures and transforms research findings into a dissemination report that shows program need and impact to endorse program continuation and expansion. This is achieved through direct and indirect data collection of community factors and program impact that can showcase the need for program sustainability and potential for future dissemination sites. Testimonials, individual feedback, and program process and outcomes contribute to the direct data while data collected from census, county, and state databases and reports allow for indirect information to be captured and analyzed. Capturing data in the two levels allow eB4CAST to forecast program need and highlight program impact through a footprint. eB4CAST framework for dissemination tool creation is organized into four sections: Capture, Assemble, Sustainability, and Timelessness. Capture encompasses the collection of indirect and direct data related to intervention goals. Assemble is the compilation of the data into a visually appealing and easily understood media. Sustainability encourages the use of dissemination tools to provide forecast of program need and footprint of program impact back to community participants, program leaders, and key stakeholders to endorse program sustainability. Lastly, timelessness encourages cyclic movement through these constructs to continue program monitoring and data sharing to ensure timeless program evaluation and conformation to change in needs. The eB4CAST framework provides a systematic method to capture justification of program need and impact of community-based research that can be modified to fit diverse public health interventions providing a necessary D & I tool.

show abstract

Section: Tool Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

eB4CAST: An Evidence-Based Tool to Promote Dissemination and Implementation in Community-Based, Public Health Research

Olfert

Hagedorn

Barr

et al. 2018

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The PACES training and practice require approximately 2-3 hours, and an audit can be completed in 25–30 mins per facility or survey. The PACES audit is part of the Healthy Campus Environmental Audit (HCEA), a series audit tools to evaluate restaurants [61], convenience stores [62], vending [63], walkability/bikeability [27], and policies [26]. The PACES audit is user-friendly and available on the internet, with training and data entry links (contact the primary author for information).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit

Horacek

Yildirim

Seidman

et al. 2019

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the redesign, field-testing, and convergent validity of a practical tool—Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) audit. Methods. The audit includes two parts: (1) PACES-Programs, which is comprised of questions regarding populations served, fees, programs (recreation/fitness classes and intramurals), proximity, adequacy of facilities, and marketing, and (2) PACES-Facilities, which is comprised of questions regarding built environment (aesthetics, bike racks, stairs, and universal design), recreation equipment, staff, amenities, and access. Each item criterion is specifically scored using a five-point, semantic-differential scale ranging from limited to extensive environmental support. A few questions utilize select all that apply for a summed score. PACES training, interrater reliability, and data collection are all accessible via an online portal. PACES was tested on 76 college campuses. Convergent validity was examined by comparing the PACES-Programs questions to Healthy Campus Initiatives-Programs questions (HCI-Programs) and comparing the PACES-Facilities questions to questions contained in the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument. Statistical analyses included Cronbach’s alpha, ANOVA, latent profile analysis, and Spearman correlations. Results. The PACES-Programs audit includes 10 items for a potential total of 73 points (α = 0.72) and PACES-Facilities audit includes 15 items for a potential total of 77 points (α = 0.837). Most (77.8%) of the 153 facilities assessed scored in the most healthful range (20–42), which was mainly due to the extensiveness of the aerobic equipment/amenities and the competence/accessibility of staff. Significant differences in PACES-Total and PACES-Programs scores were associated with campus size and PACES-Facilities across regions. For the paired validation assessments, correlations were significant between PACES-Programs and HCI-Programs ((n=41) r=0.498, p<0.001) and PACES-Facilities and PARA (n=29) for both features (r=0.417, p=0.024) and amenities (r=0.612, p<0.001), indicating moderate convergent validity. Conclusion. The PACES audit is a valid, reliable tool for assessing the quality of recreation facilities and programs in a variety of college campus environments.

show abstract

“…The type of eating establishment may influence the healthfulness of choices by college campus students. Horacek et al [ 27 ] evaluated the healthfulness of campus eating establishments and reported that among fast food, sit down, cafeteria and take-out establishments that cafeterias were offered healthier options and environment than the other establishments. The entrées evaluated and reported in this paper were offered in franchised kiosk-type eating (fast food), sit down, and take out.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Healthfulness of Entrées and Students’ Purchases in a University Campus Dining Environment

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to determine the availability of “more healthful” (MH) versus “less healthful” (LH) entrée items in the campus dining and if students’ purchases are reflective of what is offered. This is an observational study in which purchases of the available entrée items in the campus dining at South Dakota State University in one academic year were collected and categorized as either MH or LH according to the American Heart Association guidelines. Chi-square tests were used to determine the differences between the proportion of purchased MH and LH versus those available. Odds ratio estimates with 95% confidence limits were used to determine the associations between the demographics and MH and LH purchases. Of the total entrée items available, 15.0% were MH and 85.0% were LH. In the fall, 8.0% of purchases were MH and 92.0% purchases were LH as compared to 8.9% MH and 91.1% LH in the spring. Whites were less likely than non-whites to purchase a MH entrée. Females were two times more likely to choose MH entrées than males. The campus dining offerings and students’ purchases of entrees were primarily LH. Work with campus dining providers to create profitable, yet healthful, dining entrees is needed to improve the healthfulness of offerings.

show abstract

Development and validation of the Full Restaurant Evaluation Supporting a Healthy (FRESH) Dining Environment Audit

Cited by 9 publications

References 35 publications

eB4CAST: An Evidence-Based Tool to Promote Dissemination and Implementation in Community-Based, Public Health Research

eB4CAST: An Evidence-Based Tool to Promote Dissemination and Implementation in Community-Based, Public Health Research

Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit

The Healthfulness of Entrées and Students’ Purchases in a University Campus Dining Environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About