• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

精炼和实施食品配给评分工具(FAST)在食品储藏室。

Refining and implementing the Food Assortment Scoring Tool (FAST) in food pantries.

机构信息

1Department of Family Medicine and Community Health,Program in Health Disparities Research,University of Minnesota,717 Delaware Street SE,Minneapolis,MN 55414,USA.

2Biostatistical Design and Analysis Center,University of Minnesota,Minneapolis,MN,USA.

出版信息

Public Health Nutr. 2018 Oct;21(14):2548-2557. doi: 10.1017/S1368980018001362. Epub 2018 May 29.

DOI:10.1017/S1368980018001362
PMID:29808784
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6729128/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Hunger relief agencies have a limited capacity to monitor the nutritional quality of their food. Validated measures of food environments, such as the Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-2010), are challenging to use due to their time intensity and requirement for precise nutrient information. A previous study used out-of-sample predictions to demonstrate that an alternative measure correlated well with the HEI-2010. The present study revised the Food Assortment Scoring Tool (FAST) to facilitate implementation and tested the tool's performance in a real-world food pantry setting.

DESIGN

We developed a FAST measure with thirteen scored categories and thirty-one sub-categories. FAST scores were generated by sorting and weighing foods in categories, multiplying each category's weight share by a healthfulness parameter and summing the categories (range 0-100). FAST was implemented by recording all food products moved over five days. Researchers collected FAST and HEI-2010 scores for food availability and foods selected by clients, to calculate correlations.

SETTING

Five food pantries in greater Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

SUBJECTS

Food carts of sixty food pantry clients.

RESULTS

The thirteen-category FAST correlated well with the HEI-2010 in prediction models (r = 0·68). FAST scores averaged 61·5 for food products moved, 63·8 for availability and 62·5 for client carts. As implemented in the real world, FAST demonstrated good correlation with the HEI-2010 (r = 0·66).

CONCLUSIONS

The FAST is a flexible, valid tool to monitor the nutritional quality of food in pantries. Future studies are needed to test its use in monitoring improvements in food pantry nutritional quality over time.

摘要

目的

饥饿救济机构的监测能力有限,无法对其食品的营养质量进行监测。由于耗时且需要精确的营养信息,验证食品环境的有效措施,如 2010 年健康饮食指数(HEI-2010),使用起来具有挑战性。先前的一项研究使用样本外预测表明,替代措施与 HEI-2010 相关性很好。本研究修订了食品分类评分工具(FAST),以促进实施,并在现实世界的食品储藏室环境中测试了该工具的性能。

设计

我们开发了一个具有十三个评分类别的 FAST 措施和三十一个子类别。FAST 得分是通过对类别的食物进行分类和加权、将每个类别的权重份额乘以健康参数并将类别相加(范围为 0-100)来生成的。FAST 通过记录五天内移动的所有食品产品来实施。研究人员收集了 FAST 和 HEI-2010 用于评估食品供应和客户选择的食品的分数,以计算相关性。

设置

美国明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯/圣保罗大都市区的五个食品储藏室。

参与者

六十名食品储藏室客户的食品推车。

结果

十三项 FAST 与预测模型中的 HEI-2010 相关性良好(r = 0·68)。在实际实施中,FAST 与 HEI-2010 的相关性良好(r = 0·66)。

结论

FAST 是一种灵活、有效的工具,可监测食品储藏室食品的营养质量。需要进一步的研究来测试其在监测食品储藏室营养质量随时间的改善方面的用途。

相似文献

1
Refining and implementing the Food Assortment Scoring Tool (FAST) in food pantries.精炼和实施食品配给评分工具(FAST)在食品储藏室。
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Oct;21(14):2548-2557. doi: 10.1017/S1368980018001362. Epub 2018 May 29.
2
Applying the Healthy Eating Index-2015 in a Sample of Choice-Based Minnesota Food Pantries to Test Associations Between Food Pantry Inventory, Client Food Selection, and Client Diet.在明尼苏达州选择型食品储藏室样本中应用 2015 年健康饮食指数,以测试食品储藏室库存、客户食品选择和客户饮食之间的关联。
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2021 Nov;121(11):2242-2250. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2021.05.007. Epub 2021 Jun 5.
3
A behavioural economics approach to improving healthy food selection among food pantry clients.行为经济学方法在改善食品储藏室客户健康食品选择方面的应用。
Public Health Nutr. 2019 Aug;22(12):2303-2313. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019000405. Epub 2019 Mar 12.
4
Associations between Food Pantry Size and Distribution Method and Healthfulness of Foods Received by Clients in Baltimore City Food Pantries.巴尔的摩市食品发放处的食品发放规模和方式与客户所获食品健康度之间的关联。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jun 29;18(13):6979. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18136979.
5
Fruit and Vegetable Healthy Eating Index Component Scores of Distributed Food Bags Were Positively Associated with Client Diet Scores in a Sample of Rural, Midwestern Food Pantries.在中西部农村食品储藏室的样本中,分发食品袋的水果和蔬菜健康饮食指数成分得分与客户的饮食得分呈正相关。
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2021 Jan;121(1):74-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2020.09.033. Epub 2020 Oct 21.
6
Foods and Drinks Available from Urban Food Pantries: Nutritional Quality by Item Type, Sourcing, and Distribution Method.城市食品分发处的食品和饮料:按项目类型、来源和分发方法划分的营养质量。
J Community Health. 2019 Apr;44(2):339-364. doi: 10.1007/s10900-018-0592-z.
7
A randomized study of food pantry environment-level change following the SuperShelf intervention.一项关于“超级货架”干预措施后食品储藏室环境层面变化的随机研究。
Transl Behav Med. 2022 Jul 7;12(6):764-774. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibac003.
8
A Cluster-Randomized Evaluation of the SuperShelf Intervention in Choice-Based Food Pantries.基于选择的食品发放处的 SuperShelf 干预措施的整群随机评估。
Ann Behav Med. 2024 Jan 31;58(2):100-110. doi: 10.1093/abm/kaad060.
9
Protocol for the Support Application for Food PAntrieS trial: design, implementation, and evaluation plan for a digital application to promote healthy food access and support food pantry operations.食品 PAntrieS 试验支持应用程序协议:促进健康食品获取和支持食品分发库运作的数字应用程序的设计、实施和评估计划。
Front Public Health. 2024 May 24;12:1340707. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1340707. eCollection 2024.
10
Validating a Nutrition Ranking System for Food Pantries Using the Healthy Eating Index-2015.验证食品储藏室营养排名系统使用 2015 年健康饮食指数。
Nutrients. 2022 Sep 21;14(19):3899. doi: 10.3390/nu14193899.

引用本文的文献

1
Protocol for the Support Application for Food PAntrieS trial: design, implementation, and evaluation plan for a digital application to promote healthy food access and support food pantry operations.食品 PAntrieS 试验支持应用程序协议:促进健康食品获取和支持食品分发库运作的数字应用程序的设计、实施和评估计划。
Front Public Health. 2024 May 24;12:1340707. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1340707. eCollection 2024.
2
The Nutritional Quality of Food Donated to a Western Australian Food Bank.捐赠给西澳大利亚食品银行的食物的营养质量。
Nutrients. 2024 Feb 11;16(4):509. doi: 10.3390/nu16040509.
3
A Cluster-Randomized Evaluation of the SuperShelf Intervention in Choice-Based Food Pantries.基于选择的食品发放处的 SuperShelf 干预措施的整群随机评估。
Ann Behav Med. 2024 Jan 31;58(2):100-110. doi: 10.1093/abm/kaad060.
4
Dietary risk of donated food at an Australian food bank: an audit protocol.澳大利亚一家食品银行捐赠食品的饮食风险:一项审计方案。
BMC Nutr. 2023 Jun 5;9(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s40795-023-00719-8.
5
Food Pantry Clients' Needs, Preferences, and Recommendations for Food Pantries: A Qualitative Study.食品救济站客户对食品救济站的需求、偏好及建议:一项定性研究
J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2023;18(2):245-260. doi: 10.1080/19320248.2022.2058334. Epub 2022 Apr 6.
6
The charitable food system as a change agent.作为变革推动者的慈善食品系统。
Front Public Health. 2023 Mar 31;11:1156501. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1156501. eCollection 2023.
7
Policy approaches to nutrition-focused food banking in industrialized countries: a scoping review.工业化国家以营养为重点的食品银行政策方法:范围综述。
Nutr Rev. 2023 Sep 11;81(10):1373-1392. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuad004.
8
Fresh Shelves, Healthy Pantries: A Pilot Intervention Trial in Baltimore City Food Pantries.新鲜货架,健康食品储藏室:巴尔的摩市食品储藏室的一项试点干预试验。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Nov 26;19(23):15740. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192315740.
9
Validating a Nutrition Ranking System for Food Pantries Using the Healthy Eating Index-2015.验证食品储藏室营养排名系统使用 2015 年健康饮食指数。
Nutrients. 2022 Sep 21;14(19):3899. doi: 10.3390/nu14193899.
10
Food Pantry Usage Patterns are Associated with Client Sociodemographics and Health.食品储藏室使用模式与客户的社会人口统计学和健康状况相关。
J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2022;17(3):408-424. doi: 10.1080/19320248.2021.2001404. Epub 2021 Nov 14.

本文引用的文献

1
The Dietary Quality of Food Pantry Users: A Systematic Review of Existing Literature.食品救济站使用者的饮食质量:现有文献的系统综述
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017 Apr;117(4):563-576. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.08.014. Epub 2016 Oct 7.
2
Food and beverage purchases in corner stores, gas-marts, pharmacies and dollar stores.街角商店、加油站、药店和一元店的食品和饮料购买。
Public Health Nutr. 2017 Oct;20(14):2587-2597. doi: 10.1017/S1368980016002524. Epub 2016 Sep 19.
3
Application of the Healthy Eating Index-2010 to the hunger relief system.《健康饮食指数-2010》在饥饿救济系统中的应用。
Public Health Nutr. 2016 Nov;19(16):2906-2914. doi: 10.1017/S136898001600118X. Epub 2016 May 25.
4
A Pilot Food Bank Intervention Featuring Diabetes-Appropriate Food Improved Glycemic Control Among Clients In Three States.一项以适合糖尿病患者的食物为特色的试点食品银行干预措施改善了三个州客户的血糖控制。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Nov;34(11):1956-63. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0641.
5
Diet Quality of Items Advertised in Supermarket Sales Circulars Compared to Diets of the US Population, as Assessed by the Healthy Eating Index-2010.通过《2010年健康饮食指数》评估,超市促销传单上宣传的食品的饮食质量与美国人群的饮食质量对比情况。
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016 Jan;116(1):115-122.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.09.016. Epub 2015 Oct 23.
6
Applying a nutrient-rich foods index algorithm to address nutrient content of food bank food.应用富含营养食物指数算法来评估食品银行食物的营养成分。
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015 May;115(5):695-700. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2014.11.009. Epub 2015 Jan 14.
7
The United States food supply is not consistent with dietary guidance: evidence from an evaluation using the Healthy Eating Index-2010.美国的食物供应与膳食指南不一致:来自一项使用《2010年健康饮食指数》进行评估的证据。
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015 Jan;115(1):95-100. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2014.08.030. Epub 2014 Nov 1.
8
Nutritional quality at eight U.S. fast-food chains: 14-year trends.美国八大连锁快餐店的营养质量:14 年趋势。
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Jun;44(6):589-94. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.01.028.
9
Update of the Healthy Eating Index: HEI-2010.更新后的健康饮食指数:HEI-2010。
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013 Apr;113(4):569-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.12.016. Epub 2013 Feb 13.
10
Food insecurity, poor diet quality, and obesity among food pantry participants in Hartford, CT.康涅狄格州哈特福德食品储藏室参与者的食物不安全、饮食质量差和肥胖问题。
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2013 Mar;45(2):159-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2012.07.001. Epub 2012 Dec 5.