Search

Aims To qualitatively evaluate the optimal intervention (food-voucher approach vs. free daily meal distribution), aimed at reducing food insecurity and promoting healthy eating among students attending public schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. Methods We randomly assigned 34 schools to one of the two interventions: students in 17 schools received a daily lunch-box and parents in the other 17 schools received a food voucher of equal value once a month. All students were offered the opportunity to participate. We conducted 30 focus groups in all participating schools (17 in the meal distribution and 13 in the food voucher schools). Eligible participants included parents (n = 106), educators (n = 66) and school principals (n = 34). We qualitatively evaluated their perceptions and attitudes towards the program. Results Important differences were observed between the two approaches, with more favourable perceptions being reported for the meal distribution approach. More specifically, social stigmatization was minimized in the meal distribution approach, through the participation of all students, compared with the food-voucher participants who reported feelings of embarrassment and fear of stigmatization. Secondly, the meal distribution approach alleviated child food insecurity through the provision of the daily meal, while the food-voucher intervention helped manage household food insecurity, as vouchers were mainly used for purchasing food for family meals. Furthermore, the educational and experiential nature of the meal distribution approach intensified healthy eating promotion, while the food-voucher intervention was efficient mainly for conscious parents regarding healthy eating. Conclusions The meal distribution intervention was considered more effective than the food-voucher one. Hence, for interventions aiming at tackling food insecurity of children and adolescents, public health focus could be oriented towards school-based in kind food assistance.

Background: Prior statin treatment and high admission cholesterol have been associated with favorable outcome after ischemic stroke (IS), a paradox not completely explained. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of admission cholesterol levels and the impact of statin treatment on short- and long-term survival after IS. Methods: Consecutive patients admitted in 2006 and 2010 were included in the study. Total cholesterol of 4.6 mmol/L or more was defined as high. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess predictors of 1-month mortality, and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was applied to investigate predictors of long-term mortality. Results: Of 190 patients included in the final analysis, 21 (11%) died within 1 month and 61 (32%) died during 7 years of observation. Low cholesterolwas associated with older age,lower blood pressure (BP),presenceof angina, and higher risk of death. Three-month, 1-year, and 5-year survival rates were 100%, 98%, and 84%, respectively, in high cholesterol patients, compared with 92%, 87%, and 57% in low cholesterol group (P 5.0001 with the log-rank test). Mortality risk was increased for patients with low cholesterol (hazard ratio: 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-3.69), after adjustment for age and admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score. After further adjustment for angina and admission BP, the effect of cholesterol on mortality risk was still obvious, yet attenuated (hazard ratio: 1.87; 95% CI: .94-3.32). Conclusions: High admission cholesterol may be associated with increased long-term survival after IS. Future studies on the temporal profile of cholesterol levels and stroke outcome would be of