4.7 Article

Choice Architecture in Appalachian High Schools: Evaluating and Improving Cafeteria Environments

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu11010147

关键词

school lunch; choice architecture; behavioral economics; high school; Appalachia; adolescent health

资金

  1. USDA/FZNRP/Economic Research Service Behavioral Economics Grant Nudging High School Students Toward Better School Lunch Food Choices: Planning for Behavioral Economic Interventions in West Virginia [59-5000-0-0087]
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences T32 grant [GM081741]
  3. West Virginia University Hatch [WVA00641]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

School meals are a primary source of nutrition for many adolescents. Determining factors that influence the selection of various foods can provide insight on strategies to improve students' cafeteria choices. This evaluation and observation was conducted at three Appalachian high schools to assess the cafeteria environment. The study developed and implemented an assessment tool created using principles of choice architecture and behavioral economics building on the work of the Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs (BEN Center). The assessment tool scored eight components of the lunchroom-the exterior, hot serving area, cold serving area, salad bar, beverage area, payment station, dining area and grab-n-go, where a higher score equals healthier components offered. High school (HS) #1 earned 73/128 points (57%), HS #2 earned 69/128 (54%), and HS #3 earned 53/102 (52%). HS #3 did not have a grab-n-go option and the final score was out of 102. Video observation was used to collect data on lunchroom activity during mealtimes. Each school received reports that highlight the results and suggest improvements to raise their score. The scoring tool represents a novel way to assess the health of school lunches, provide insights on how to improve the healthfulness of students' lunch choice, and improve overall nutrition status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据