Download - Society for Public Health Education

Poster Abstractsthe time period from 2000 to 2010, in which 15 interventionsmet the inclusion criteria. A posteriori effect size for theprimary outcome of each intervention was calculated usingG*Power. Results showed that interventions were typicallyimplemented in the community setting, such as in churchesand elder day care centers, nursing homes, and over theInternet. Many were based on some behavioral theory ortherapy such as problem solving therapy, supportive therapy,reminiscence group therapy, social cognitive theory, and thetranstheoretical model. Some implemented environmentalchanges and enacted policies for prevention to make mentalhealth awareness a priority in the community for issues suchas suicide prevention. The duration of these interventionsalso greatly varied, as some were community wide programslasting up to 15 years and others were brief interventionslasting one to two weeks. Overall, these interventions werefound to be effective for preventing the onset of mentalissues and reducing the burden of current mental healthissues. Effect sizes (as measured by Cohen’s f) were also foundto range from small to medium. Limitations in program’smethodology, design, implementation, outcome assessments,and ways to enhance effectiveness will be discussed.5. A Systematic Analysis of Childhood Obesity PreventionInterventions Implemented during the After SchoolPeriod: Implications for Future Research and PracticePaul Branscum, PhD, RD, LD, The Department of Health and ExerciseScience, The University of Oklahoma; Manoj Sharma, PhD, MCHES,Health Promotion and Education, The University of CincinnatiDuring the past three decades the prevalence of childhoodobesity has tripled. This is of concern due to the reportedmetabolic, psychological and social consequences associatedwith excess weight gain. Interventions that can favorablyimpact factors associated with the prevention of childhoodobesity could help promote a healthier lifestyle into adulthoodand curtail future health care costs. While schools are oneplace intervention strategies are greatly needed, accessinto schools is becoming problematic as schools no longerwant to take on subject matter outside of subjects that areevaluated by standardized testing. Therefore, the afterschooltime frame appears to be an excellent opportunity forinterventions, however less work has been done in this areaand few reports have reviewed these efforts. Therefore, thepurpose of this study was to systematically evaluate obesityprevention interventions implemented during the after schooltime frame. A systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, and ERICwas done for the time period from 2000 to 2010. A posteriorieffect size for the primary outcome of each intervention wascalculated using G*Power. A total of 15 interventions met theinclusion criteria. Overall the quality of for these interventionsgreatly varied, as some were grouped randomized controlledtrials and others were small pilot studies. Many studiesutilized interventions that were based on a behavioral theoryand social cognitive theory was most commonly utilized.Common limitations for these studies included: few reportedan a priori sample size justification, few reported usingprocess evaluations to evaluate programmatic dose andintegrity, few studies attempted or employed environmentalor policy changes, nesting of naturally occurring groups,such as classrooms within treatment condition, were rarelydone in data analyses, and not all studies used a control* Denotes Poster Promenadegroup. Overall, five had significant findings with effect sizesranging from small to medium. Limitations in program’smethodology, design, implementation, and outcomeassessments will be further discussed and implications forfuture studies to enhance effectiveness will be addressed.6. Development and Implementation of a MultipleSite, University-Wide Tobacco-Free Policy at theUniversity of Medicine and Dentistry of New JerseyGlorian Persaud, BS, CHES, University of Medicine andDentistry of New Jersey School of Public Health, Departmentof Health Education and Behavioral ScienceBackground: In an effort to enhance the health of thecommunity, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of NewJersey (UMDNJ), the nation’s largest free standing healthsciences university, has formulated and commenced adoptionof a multi-site, university-wide tobacco-free campus policy.This system change is an expansion on the preexisting smokefreebuilding policy enacted in 1978 prohibiting smoking andchewing tobacco around the entrance of any UMDNJ ownedor operated facility, though allowing use of such productsin designated areas. This new policy prohibits tobacco useanywhere on or in UMDNJ property, including inside vehicles.Theoretical Basis: This policy influences several levels of thesocial-ecological model, and the integration of these levelsis paramount to successfully reducing tobacco use amongstUMDNJ affiliates. By implementing a university-wide policy,influences at the societal, community, and interpersonallevels are affected by creating an environment wheretobacco use is socially unacceptable. Objectives: In aligningwith the University’s mission, 1. to enhance the health ofUMDNJ faculty, staff, students, patients and their families byproviding a cleaner, tobacco-free environment to practicemedicine and receive services and 2. To decrease tobacco useamongst current UMDNJ users. Interventions: Working withthe American Cancer Society to achieve the CEO Cancer GoldStandard accreditation, as well as with key stakeholders withinthe university, a strategic plan was developed to systematicallyimplement a unified tobacco-free campus policy across allUMDNJ units over several years. The policy was piloted at theCancer Institute of New Jersey (CINJ) on June 1, 2011 and willcontinue with the adjacent Robert Wood Johnson UniversityHospital (RWJUH) on July 4, 2011. A survey was administered toall UMDNJ faculty, staff, and students regarding their feelingson eleven items concerning the new policy approximately onemonth prior to its implementation at CINJ. Outreach regardingfree tobacco cessation services available on the RWJUHcampus was also disseminated several months prior to thepolicy implementation. Evaluation Measures and Results: Preimplementationquestionnaire results illustrate that 75.9% ofUMDNJ affiliates surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that thenew tobacco-free campus policy will improve the overall healthof the UMDNJ population, while 84.4% agreed or stronglyagreed that this policy would reduce second-hand smokeexposure. Additionally, 17.9% of smokers surveyed reportedthe policy may help them quit smoking. Integration of thetobacco-free policy at CINJ has been fully achieved and moredetails regarding the policy implementation will be presented.SOPHE 62nd Annual Meeting43