Engaging the Community to Improve Nutrition and Physical Activity Among Houses of Worship

Abstract

BackgroundObesity, physical inactivity, and poor nutrition have been linked to many chronic diseases. Research indicates that interventions in community-based settings such as houses of worship can build on attendees’ trust to address health issues and help them make behavioral changes.Community ContextNew Brunswick, New Jersey, has low rates of physical activity and a high prevalence of obesity. An adapted community-based intervention was implemented there to improve nutrition and physical activity among people who attend houses of worship and expand and enhance the network of partners working with Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey.MethodsAn adapted version of Body & Soul: A Celebration of Healthy Living and Eating was created using a 3-phase model to 1) educate lay members on nutrition and physical activity, 2) provide sustainable change through the development of physical activity programming, and 3) increase access to local produce through collaborations with community partners.OutcomeNineteen houses of worship were selected for participation in this program. Houses of worship provided a questionnaire to a convenience sample of its congregation to assess congregants’ physical activity levels and produce consumption behaviors at baseline using questions from the Health Information National Trends Survey instrument. This information was also used to inform future program activities.InterpretationCommunity-based health education can be a promising approach when appropriate partnerships are identified, funding is adequate, ongoing information is extracted to inform future action, and there is an expectation from all parties of long-term engagement and capacity building.

Screening for Depression in African-American Churches

“…However, this sampling strategy was informed by our qualitative data, collaboratively agreed upon by church stakeholders and academicians, and is consistent with other recruitment strategies utilized in churches. 65 Owing to the cross-sectional design, we cannot make causal interpretations. Finally, we did not collect data on current mental health treatment (i.e., during the prior 30 days) or the quality of care received, so we cannot comment on participants’ current treatment needs or their satisfaction with care.…”

A Scoping Review of the Community Health Worker Model Used for Food Systems Interventions Within the United States

“…63,64 The nutrition education activities included in this review were culturally tailored to priority populations. The results demonstrate that the CHW model can connect individuals to culturally relevant foods through education on food preparation and consumption, [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][25][26][27][28][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] and these CHW-facilitated connections are emerging into food access efforts, evidenced by the 22 included studies with a food access component. However, the limited number of studies that provided education on multiple food system processes beyond preparation and consumption indicates that the CHW model has not been widely used in broad lens food systems educational interventions.…”

“…Food access was targeted via farmers market promotion, 16,17 food baskets or vouchers, [18][19][20][21] resource education on healthy neighborhood options, [22][23][24][25] Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) promotion, 24,26 or efforts to create a healthy food environment in community settings. 18,[27][28][29][30][31][32] Multiple studies used home or community gardens as a platform to increase access to fresh produce and educate participants on healthier food production and consumption choices. [33][34][35][36][37] Each food system process of production, [33][34][35]37 processing, 35,37 distribution, 33,36,37 marketing, 18,27,30,31 and disposal 34,35,38 was targeted in less than 5 studies per process.…”

“…38 Increasing markers of diet quality, including fruit and vegetable consumption, was the most common primary targeted outcome. 20,21,26,28,31,32,34,36,37,39,[42][43][44][45]47,[49][50][51][52]54,55,57,58 Many of the nutrition education efforts also aimed to increase physical activity levels for obesity and diet-related chronic disease prevention. 18,26,28,31,36,40,[43][44][45]48,51,53,57,58 A variety of biomarkers were used to assess healthy lifestyles, including weight, BMI, and waist to hip ratio.…”

“…20,21,26,28,31,32,34,36,37,39,[42][43][44][45]47,[49][50][51][52]54,55,57,58 Many of the nutrition education efforts also aimed to increase physical activity levels for obesity and diet-related chronic disease prevention. 18,26,28,31,36,40,[43][44][45]48,51,53,57,58 A variety of biomarkers were used to assess healthy lifestyles, including weight, BMI, and waist to hip ratio. 18,23,25,33,40,[43][44][45][46]51,58 Diabetes management interventions included biomarkers such as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting serum glucose, and lipid parameters.…”