Insights on the Intersection of Health Equity and School Nutrition Policy Implementation: An Exploratory Qualitative Secondary Analysis

Abstract

Background. Recent federal policies aimed to ensure that all children have equitable access to healthy school nutrition environments. However, historically, disparities have persisted in the quality of school nutrition environments across geographic and socioeconomic groups. There is limited literature addressing if and how recent efforts to reform the school nutrition environment have influenced such disparities. The main objective of this study was to explore stakeholders’ insights on how school nutrition reform intersected with issues of inequity. Method. Qualitative secondary analysis (QSA) offers a unique method to examine existing data with a related but distinct inquiry. This QSA analyzed three primary studies, including stakeholder interviews and focus group data with school professionals and students (total 60 transcripts). Two trained analysts iteratively coded all transcripts in Atlas.ti Version 7 and followed principles of constant comparative analysis. Measures to enhance “trustworthiness” were built into the primary studies and the QSA. Results. Broadly, stakeholders’ complex insights about the school food environments’ ability to compensate for healthy dietary options and “whole child” education that were perceived to be lacking in home environments. Despite the majority of respondents’ positive perceptions of reforms, they also noted the challenges of addressing disparities due to family home environments and complex socioeconomic conditions. Overall, respondents reported that school food reform and nutrition education had the potential for long-term impacts on students’ health, including the potential to improve disparities through enhanced academic achievement for disadvantaged populations. Discussion and Conclusion. QSA allowed for inquiry into frontline stakeholders’ understandings of how school nutrition reform may affect health inequities. Qualitative methods allowed for the examination of complex motivations and perspectives involved in policy implementation. Understanding frontline stakeholders’ perspectives is key to advance school nutrition reform in a sustainable manner, especially in light of the federal local school wellness policy final rule.

Keywords

adolescent health diet health disparities health promotion qualitative methods school-based

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asada

Chriqui

J. F.

Chavez

Odoms-Young

Handler

(2016). USDA snack policy implementation: Best practices from the front lines, United States, 2013–2014. Preventing Chronic Disease, 13.

Asada

Hughes

Read

Schwartz

Chriqui

J. F.

(in press). High school students’ recommendations to improve school food environments: Insights from a critical stakeholder group. Journal of School Health.

Asada

Ziemann

Zatz

Chriqui

J. F.

(2017). Successes and challenges in school meal reform: Qualitative insights from Food Service Directors. Journal of School Health, 87, 608-615. doi:10.1111/josh.12534

Bailey-Davis

Virus

McCoy

T. A.

Wojtanowski

Vander Veur

S. S.

Foster

G. D.

(2013). Middle school student and parent perceptions of government-sponsored free school breakfast and consumption: A qualitative inquiry in an urban setting. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113, 251-257.

Banfield

E. C.

Liu

Davis

J. S.

Chang

Frazier-Wood

A. C.

(2015). Poor adherence to US Dietary Guidelines for children and adolescents in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey population. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116, 21-27.

Braveman

(2014). What are health disparities and health equity? We need to be clear. Public Health Reports, 129(Suppl. 2), 5-8.

Caspi

C. E.

Davey

Nelson

T. F.

Larson

Kubik

M. Y.

Coombes

Nanney

M. S.

(2015). Disparities persist in nutrition policies and practices in Minnesota secondary schools. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 115, 419-425.e3.

Chang

Carithers

Leeke

Chin

(2016). Geographic disparity in funding for school nutrition environments: Evidence from Mississippi schools. Journal of School Health, 86, 121-128.

Cornish

Askelson

Golembiewski

(2016). “Reforms looked really good on paper”: Rural food service responses to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Journal of School Health, 86, 113-120.

10.

Damschroder

L. J.

Aron

D. C.

Keith

R. E.

Kirsh

S. R.

Alexander

J. A.

Lowery

J. C.

(2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(50), 40-55.

11.

Friese

(2014). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing. (n.d.). Youth for healthy schools. Retrieved from http://www.youthforhealthyschools.com/

13.

Goodell

L. S.

Stage

V. C.

Cooke

N. K.

(2016). Practical qualitative research strategies: Training interviewers and coders. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 48(8), 578–585.e1. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.06.001

14.

Heaton

(2008). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An overview. Historical Social Research, 33(3), 33-45.

15.

Hinds

P. S.

Vogel

R. J.

Clarke-Steffen

(1997). The possibilities and pitfalls of doing a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Qualitative Health Research, 7, 408-424.

16.

Institute of Medicine. (2012). Accelerating progress in obesity prevention: Solving the weight of the nation. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2012/Accelerating-Progress-in-Obesity-Prevention.aspx

17.

Irwin

Winterton

(2011). Debates in qualitative secondary analysis: Critical reflections (Timescapes Working Paper No. 4). Retrieved from http://forscenter.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/WP4-March-2011.pdf

18.

Long-Sutehall

Sque

Addington-Hall

(2011). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: A valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusive population? Journal of Research in Nursing, 16, 335-344.

19.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Nanney

M. S.

Bohner

Friedrichs

(2008). Poverty-related factors associated with obesity prevention policies in Utah secondary schools. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108, 1210-1215.

21.

Nanney

M. S.

Davey

(2008). Evaluating the distribution of school wellness policies and practices: A framework to capture equity among schools serving the most weight-vulnerable children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108, 1436-1439.

22.

Nanney

M. S.

Davey

C. S.

Kubik

M. Y.

(2013). Rural disparities in the distribution of policies that support healthy eating in US secondary schools. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113, 1062-1068.

23.

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Common core data: Identification of rural locales. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp

24.

O’Brien

B. C.

Harris

I. B.

Beckman

T. J.

Reed

D. A.

Cook

D. A.

(2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research. Academic Medicine, 89, 1245-1251.

25.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Pilant

V. B.

(2006). Position of the American Dietetic Association: Local support for nutrition integrity in schools. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106, 122-133.

27.

Powell

(2008). Post-racialism or targeted universalism. Denver University Law Review, 86(785). Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/1633

28.

Reich

S. M.

Kay

J. S.

Lin

G. C.

(2015). Nourishing a partnership to improve middle school lunch options: A community-based participatory research project. Family & Community Health, 38, 77-86.

29.

Shenton

(2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75.

30.

Sturm

(2008). Disparities in the food environment surrounding US middle and high schools. Public Health, 122, 681-690.

31.

Taber

D. R.

Chriqui

J. F.

Chaloupka

F. J.

(2011). Geographic disparities in state and district policies targeting youth obesity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41, 407-414.

32.

Taber

D. R.

Chriqui

J. F.

Chaloupka

F. J.

(2013). State laws governing school meals and disparities in fruit/vegetable intake. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44, 365-372.

33.

Thorne

(1994). Secondary analysis in qualitative research: Issues and implications. In Morse

(Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 263-279). London, England: Sage.

34.

Turner

Chaloupka

F. J.

(2014). Perceived reactions of elementary school students to changes in school lunches after implementation of the United States Department of Agriculture’s new meals standards: Minimal backlash, but rural and socioeconomic disparities exist. Childhood Obesity, 10, 349-356.

35.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2012). Nutrition standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs; Final Rule. Federal Register, 77(17), 4088-4167. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-26/pdf/2012-1010.pdf

36.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2013). National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs: Nutrition standards for all foods sold in school, as required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; Final Rule. Federal Register, 78(125), 39068-39120. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-06-28/pdf/2013-15249.pdf

37.

Yardley

S. J.

Watts

K. M.

Pearson

Richardson

J. C.

(2014). Ethical issues in the reuse of qualitative data: Perspectives from literature, practice, and participants. Qualitative Health Research, 24, 102-113.