Evaluation of the nutrition education for limited resource audiences in Iowa

Abstract

I would like to acknowledge my major professor, Ruth E. Litchfield, and my committee members, Sarah L. Francis and Ulrike Genschel, for their guidance and support throughout the course of this research. Further, I would like to acknowledge the program director of EFNEP/SNAP-Ed, Christine Hradek, and the staff at Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, specifically, Jody Gatewood and Justine Hoover, who made this research project possible. I want to also offer my appreciation to the nutrition educators and participants who were willing to participate in the surveys, focus group discussions, and structured observations, without whom this thesis would not exist.In addition, I would also like to thank my lab mates, Jessica Szczepanski, Hilary Green, Jennifer Pilut, and Hailey Ebacher, for their constant assistance and guidance throughout the entirety of this project. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family for being my support system and making my time at Iowa State University a wonderful experience.

Health behavior interventions among people with lower socio-economic position: a scoping review of behavior change techniques and effectiveness

“…Nieves et al, 2022 ), ≤185% (e.g. Bird & McClelland, 2017 ; Dollahite et al, 2014 ; Seguin-Fowler et al, 2021 ; Skalka, 2020 ), <200% (e.g. Hayashi et al, 2010 ; Ritten et al, 2016 ) or <250% (e.g.…”

Health Behavior Interventions Among People With Lower Socio-Economic Status: A Scoping Review of Behavior Change Techniques and Effectiveness

“…Also, if definitions of 'lower SES' were provided, they varied a lot between studies. To describe low-income participants, studies for example applied a threshold of <100% (e.g., Nieves et al, 2022), ≤185% (e.g., Bird & McClelland, 2017;Seguin-Fowler et al, 2021;Skalka, 2020), <200% (e.g., Hayashi et al, 2010;Ritten et al, 2016) or <250% (e.g., Gray et al, 2021) of the federal poverty line. In addition to these different thresholds, studies also varied what proportion of the included sample fell into the definition of 'lower SES' in order to justify labelling a sample overall as (relatively) low SES.…”