Anna Martin

University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR), Los Ángeles, California, United States

Are you Anna Martin?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)5.28 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the influence of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and participant demographics on nutrition education outcomes. At program enrollment (pre) and 1 month later (post), a statewide convenience sample of adults, who participated in the Plan, Shop, Save, and Cook program, completed a 7-item questionnaire to evaluate change in resource management skills (RMS) and running out of food before the end of the month. Percent of participants (n = 3,744) who reported behavioral improvements in RMS ranged from 38.8% in comparing prices to 54% in reading labels. Female gender and Hispanic ethnicity were positively related to pre-post RMS change (P = .001). Participants who received SNAP food assistance and made greater pre-post improvement in RMS reported the greatest decrease in running out of food (P = .001). Both food assistance and education on nutrition and resource management are needed to reduce food insecurity in SNAP-eligible audiences. Copyright © 2015 Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior. Published by Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    04/2015; 47(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jneb.2015.01.012
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Literacy is an issue for many low-income audiences. Using visual information processing theories, the goal was improving readability of a food behavior checklist and ultimately improving its ability to accurately capture existing changes in dietary behaviors. Using group interviews, low-income clients (n = 18) evaluated 4 visual styles. The text plus color photographs style was preferred over the other 3 visual styles: text only, text plus black and white line drawings, and text plus gray-scale photographs. Employing cognitive interviewing in an iterative process, clients (n = 25) recommended simplifying text for 10 items, modifying content for 15 of 16 visuals, and replacing text with visual content for 7 of 16 items. Professional staff (n = 7) and educators (n = 10) verified that visuals and revised text accurately reflected the content of each item. Clients reported that the revised checklist captured their attention, added pleasure to the evaluation process, improved their understanding of the behaviors in question, and facilitated comprehension of text. Readability scores improved by more than 2 grades. This process can be duplicated by others interested in enhancing the quality of existing evaluation tools.
    Journal of nutrition education and behavior 05/2008; 40(3):181-6. DOI:10.1016/j.jneb.2007.06.011 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study determined whether a "Contract for Change" goal-setting exercise enhanced the effectiveness of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education/Food Stamp Nutrition Education programs to increase produce consumption in low-income (<130% of poverty) women after 4 weeks. Thirty-eight participants were randomized in this three-group parallel arm study: (a) control group participants received life-skills lessons, (b) the education group received the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education/Food Stamp Nutrition Education "Food Guide Pyramid" lessons, and (c) the contract group also received the "Food Guide Pyramid" series and completed a "Contract for Change." It was hypothesized that the contract group would have the greatest increases in advancement toward dietary change and produce consumption. Compared with controls, the contract group significantly moved toward acceptance of vegetable consumption (P < or = .05). Compared with the education group, the contract group significantly increased fruit consumption. Results suggest that nutrition professionals can effectively use goal-setting to assist low-income populations with dietary change.
    Journal of the American Dietetic Association 12/2005; 105(11):1793-6. DOI:10.1016/j.jada.2005.08.015 · 3.92 Impact Factor