Strategies for Designing Clergy and Spouse Obesity-Related Programs

Abstract

Purpose: Clergy have influence on the health of congregations and communities yet struggle with health behaviors. Interventions tailored to their occupation-specific demands and unique needs may provide a solution. Qualitative methods were used to identify opportunities and resources for the development of an effective obesity-related program for clergy. Approach: Ninety-minute focus groups were held with clergy (3 groups) and spouses (3 separate groups). Discussion explored: Program target(s); Opportunities and barriers that influence diet, physical activity, and stress-reduction practices; Empowering and culturally relevant health promotion strategies. Setting: All study activities took place in Memphis, TN. Participants: Eighteen clergy and fourteen spouses participated. All clergy were male, all spouses were female. Method: Previous research with clergy informed the interview guide and the PEN-3 framework aided in organizing the coding of clergy and spouse focus groups. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcripts analyzed using NVivo® 12. Results: Themes included: 1) Intervention targets—clergy, spouses, congregations; 2) Opportunities and barriers—making time, establishing boundaries, church traditions, individuals who support and hinder behavior change; 3) Intervention strategies—tools for healthy eating, goal setting, camaraderie, combining face-to-face with eHealth modalities. Conclusion: The relationship between clergy, spouse, and congregation make it important for obesity-related programs to target the unique needs of both clergy and spouses. Strategies should focus on healthy eating and personal connections no matter the modality used.

A Scoping Review of Self-Care Within the Context of Obesity-Related Outcomes Among Faith Leaders

“…Most studies (n = 15) were published in 2013 or later. The majority of studies were published in the United States (n = 13), 7,12,14,15,17,30,31,[37][38][39][40][41][42] with the remaining studies published in South Korea (n = 4), [20][21][22]43 Sri Lanka (n = 1), 32 Canada (n = 1) 44 and Britain (n = 1). 45…”

“…This review included quantitative (n = 15), qualitative (n = 4), and mixed-methods studies (n = 1) (See Table 2). Most study designs were cross-sectional (n = 12), 7,12,14,15,17,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44] followed by: case-control studies (n = 3), [20][21][22] randomized controlled trials (n = 2), 30,31 focused ethnographies (n = 1), 32 postintervention participant follow-up designs (n = 1), 37 and longitudinal cohort studies (n = 1). 45 The faith traditions examined were Christianity (n = 15) 7,[12][13][14][15]17,30,31,[37][38][39][40][41][42]44 and Buddhism (n = 5).…”

“…Most study designs were cross-sectional (n = 12), 7,12,14,15,17,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44] followed by: case-control studies (n = 3), [20][21][22] randomized controlled trials (n = 2), 30,31 focused ethnographies (n = 1), 32 postintervention participant follow-up designs (n = 1), 37 and longitudinal cohort studies (n = 1). 45 The faith traditions examined were Christianity (n = 15) 7,[12][13][14][15]17,30,31,[37][38][39][40][41][42]44 and Buddhism (n = 5). [20][21][22]32,43 Five studies examined weightrelated outcomes, including prevalence of obesity and body fat (eg, anthropometric and body composition measurements).…”

“…14 Lastly, eight studies examined what predicted self-care behavior, including: barriers (eg, lack of time), devotion to faith tradition, and detachment. 15,31,32,[38][39][40][41][42] Of the 20 studies included in the review, only seven used a theory or framework to guide their methodology. The theories/frameworks used were: Socio-Ecological Framework, 7,38 PEN-3 Model, 39 Theory of Planned Behavior, 15,30,37 and Social Cognitive Theory.…”

“…15,31,32,[38][39][40][41][42] Of the 20 studies included in the review, only seven used a theory or framework to guide their methodology. The theories/frameworks used were: Socio-Ecological Framework, 7,38 PEN-3 Model, 39 Theory of Planned Behavior, 15,30,37 and Social Cognitive Theory. 31…”