1996
DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3182(96)70072-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of a Cancer Intervention on Diet-related Cardiovascular Disease Risks of White and African-American EFNEP Clients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2003), and one study reduced fat intake by about 5% of energy and increased fibre intake by 4–6 g/day (Cox et al . 1995; 1996). However, there is little information available about the sustainability of the effects of this approach.…”
Section: What Work?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2003), and one study reduced fat intake by about 5% of energy and increased fibre intake by 4–6 g/day (Cox et al . 1995; 1996). However, there is little information available about the sustainability of the effects of this approach.…”
Section: What Work?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority (87%, n = 26) of the included studies had study objectives that focused on achieving the general objectives of EFNEP, for example, improving dietary practice, food security, and FRM skills. Four studies (13%) had more specific objectives, such as iron consumption, 33 fat consumption, 38 or cancer and cardiovascular disease risk behaviors, 35,43 that were related to the programs' objectives but were not the focus of a typical EF-NEP curriculum. T a g g e d P Among the 26 studies that targeted general objectives, the effects on behaviors because of changes in recruitment strategies (n = 1), 32 curriculum modification (n = 4), 11,37,39,42 or mode of delivery (n = 5), 32,36,37,44,48 were also examined.…”
Section: Study Characteristics and Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The quality assessment score was "weak" for 80% of the studies (n = 24), 9,11,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]42,43,45,47,48 "moderate" for 5 studies, 2,39,41,44,46 and "strong" for 1 study 31 (Supplementary Table S1). Weak rankings were primarily because of allocation bias resulting from the study design, unvalidated tools used for data collection, and unreported dropout rate.…”
Section: Study Characteristics and Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations