Food for Thought: How Public Health has Failed to Combat Obesity – Aanchal Sharma

Oftentimes, small issues that remain untreated can escalate into large scale problems. This is the case with obesity, defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m² or higher (12). Obesity has now become an epidemic in the United States, where approximately seventy million Americans are obese and more than one in three of all adults and one in five of all children are overweight (3). Many intervention programs have been launched to deal with this public health issue. A number of the programs are aimed at improving the nutritional health of young children so that they will maintain a healthy diet into adulthood. Among these interventions is the implementation of a weight report card system for schoolchildren. This intervention has been proposed in different forms in various states and has met with mixed emotions from both parents and children.

The Weight Report Card

The general concept of the weight report card is to keep parents informed about the nutritional status of their children and to help them teach their children about proper eating habits so that obesity does not becomes an issue. The way the weight report card works is that the school measures the weight and height of all the students and then uses these measurements to calculate their BMI. The BMI is then scaled against what is considered underweight, healthy, overweight, or obese and these finding are sent home to parents just like an academic report card (4). While the goal of the weight report card is similar that of most public health interventions – to stimulate a change in the behavior of both parents and children – it has not been documented to have achieved such success (16). Nevertheless, the weight report cards did increase awareness among parents about the health of their children. The lack of success of the weight report card intervention program can be attributed to issues with stimulating an intention to change behavior, self-efficacy, and framing. Each of these factors has a key impact on how people with react to the intervention and whether or not they will be influenced enough to change their behavior.

Critique 1: The Inability to Create an Intention to Change Behavior

The weight report card does not create an intention to change behavior. Intention to carry out an action or behavior is an important component of the traditional health behavior models (15). Though intention does not always lead to the execution of a behavior, the existence of intention is necessary to have some sort of desire to change a behavior. The weight report cards are intended to stimulate a change in behavior that will lead to healthier lifestyles for children (16). However, by just pointing out the children who are overweight and obese, there is no true motivation to improve health. Furthermore, in cases where programs are offered to the children and the families of the children who have higher BMIs, there is a lack of intention for families to get involved because of the stigma that is associated with these programs. If the school were to offer to all of the schoolchildren a program that would have components aimed at increasing physical fitness and improving eating patterns, children and their families would be more inclined to get involved since the programs would be associated with healthier lifestyles, rather than only helping those who are obese or at risk (6).

In Wyoming, the school district that distributed weight report cards also offered students and their families an opportunity to get involved in a program called the Healthy Kids Club, which included a weekly exercise regime. Rather than having the intention to change their behavior and have their families become more physically active, parents of the children who were offered this program due to their high BMI were offended and outraged. They did not want to subject themselves or their children to a program that implied that their family was incapable of taking care of themselves and of making healthy decisions (6).

In Arkansas, the weight report cards do offer suggestions on ways to improve the quality of health, but there are not concrete examples being offered to parents (2). There is no acknowledgement of the fact that the problem may also be due to parents who are unaware of how to go about changing the behavior of their children. In some cases, parents may realize that there is a problem, but may not know how to approach the situation or may need help in finding a solution. Thus, it is essential to incorporate a component of common ways to improve the nutritional health of individual and this can even be presented through informational sessions at local schools or community centers. These sessions should be offered to any parents who may be interested in the issue and during these sessions, the parents can be informed of ways to motivate their children to be more physically active and improve the quality of their health. The addition of these components into the weight report card program could help create the intention necessary to change behavior among the target population.

Critique 2: The Concept of Self-Efficacy

Many of the traditional health behavior models include the concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can be understood as an individual’s belief as to whether or not he or she can carry out an action or behavior (15). In the case of the weight report cards, it seems as if the intervention completely disregarded the concept of self-efficacy. By pointing out children who are overweight or obese, the intervention creates a division between the children. This can really have a negative effect on the self-esteem of the children who may be more at risk for obesity as compared to their classmates. This can also result in reduced self-efficacy among the children who are more overweight as they may become increasingly self-conscious and place greater blame on themselves for their physical condition. Thus, they may not feel like they are capable of doing anything to improve their physical health or may not be motivated to change their behavior due to the lack of positive reinforcement from the intervention program. In addition to this, children may be more prone to develop unhealthy eating habits or eating disorders due to the stigma that is associated with getting a high BMI on their weight report card (26).

Self-efficacy is an essential mediating mechanism in enhancing the understanding of the treatment of those who are overweight and obese (27). Research that assessed the importance of self-efficacy has shown that treatment programs for weight are incomplete without this component of the model (4). Weight loss can only be achieved when an individual makes an effort and feels like he or she can achieve successful results by altering eating patterns and increasing physical activity. Personal health care and management requires a drive that comes from within the individual, which includes a desire to change behavior and the confidence that he or she is capable of changing the behavior. Self-efficacy has a great impact on self-management and is a key component on one’s initiative to change behavior and promote healthy living (7). Thus, without the component of self-efficacy, it becomes difficult to implement a program to successfully help with the obesity epidemic.

Critique 3: Framing Obese Children as Failures

One alternative model for public health intervention is the framing theory. The framing theory is based on the principle that if you frame something the right way, you can change the mentality of a group and influence a change in behavior by appealing to the core values of a group (15). Proponents of the weight report card program may argue that they are trying to appeal to the value of good health; however, there is a stigma attached to a report card. A bad grade on a report card can really harm the self-esteem of children and may make them feel like failures. The weight report card does not take external factors into consideration. It implies that it is the child’s fault that he or she is overweight or obese. Like self-efficacy, self-esteem is a key factor to consider when assessing weight report cards (19). Obese children with decreasing levels of self-esteem demonstrate emotional problems and engage in high-risk behaviors, such as smoking or consuming alcohol (28). They are generally more disengaged and tend to exhibit signs of sadness, loneliness, and even depression. Research has also shown that middle school females who perceive themselves as overweight are significantly more likely to be associated with suicidal thoughts and actions, and for middle school males, perceptions of being underweight or overweight were significantly linked to suicidal thoughts and actions (29). If the weight report cards are issued in schools and boys and girls are being told that they are overweight or obese, there is a direct negative effect on their mental health and self-esteem. Thus, the weight report cards need to be reconstructed so that they are not as harmful to the self-esteem of schoolchildren.

Generally, school grades are meant to reflect the caliber of a student’s performance in class and are an assessment of their ability to do well both in class and on exams. Similarly, the weight grade can be associated with poor eating habits and lack of physical activity, framing the problem as a result of poor performance on the part of the child. This may be the case for some children; however, there are often biological issues that can result in higher BMIs for certain children, such as slower metabolism or a problem with the stomach, liver, or kidneys. Furthermore, BMI does not take body composition into consideration and therefore can misclassify someone who is healthy with greater muscle mass as overweight. The American Academy of Pediatrics conducted a study that shows that if one parent is obese, the odds ratio is approximately three times the normal risk for that child to become obese in adulthood. If both parents are obese, the risk increases to ten times the normal risk (20). The weight report cards do not account for these issues. Thus, the way the intervention is framed does not have a sympathetic tone; instead, it is rather critical and places the blame on the individual and his or her family and lifestyle.

Framing interventions in a particular way has a direct impact on the emotional response of an individual to the information being presented (13). The emotional response of an individual will influence how they will approach the intervention and whether or not they will be open to the information being presented to them. It is also important to frame the issue of obesity in terms of external environmental and societal factors in addition to the personal factors that the weight report card focuses on (14). For example, availability of healthy foods and socioeconomic status may be linked with why certain communities have a greater percentage of overweight and obese people. Each of these aspects of framing can make a great difference in the success rate of the intervention program.

Food for Thought: Where Do We Go from Here?

Even though the weight report cards are not the key intervention to help reduce obesity among schoolchildren in the United States, it still has strong elements that can be further developed to create a more effective public health program. The weight report card was effective in creating raised awareness about the issue of obesity (16, 19). This is a key aspect to creating interventions that will have successful results. Increasing awareness about an issue increases the perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of an individual towards a problem (15). However, this is not enough to create an intention to change behavior.

A better suited intervention program would stem off of the idea of using school as a medium for assessing the health of the children. Instead of alienating children who have a BMI that categorizes them as overweight or obese, the school administration should educate all the children about the importance of proper eating habits and physical fitness. Classroom presentations, healthier lunch options, and more physical activities for children to participate in are all components of making the school environment more conducive towards providing children with outlets for improving the quality of their health (25). By educating children about how they can better take care of themselves and improve their own health, there will be less of a stigmatization towards children who may be at risk for obesity and there will be more positive reinforcement to encourage children to change their behaviors.

The weight report card allows public health officials to realize how physical health is a sensitive topic that needs to be dealt with using discretion. Placing blame and framing the problem in a way that makes people feel guilty will only result in disheartened or angered individuals. Society and media is obsessed with body image and there is a constant emphasis placed on being skinny and how that is associated with beauty. Schoolchildren are aware of this image and are able to draw correlations between weight and lifestyle. Thus, telling children that they are overweight is not enough to stimulate the change in behavior that will lead to weight loss. The interventions laid out by public health officials should focus more on providing solutions rather than pointing out who is at need for the most help, especially since schoolchildren are probably aware of their health status in terms of weight. Such solutions can include programs that focus on better eating patterns and ways to increase physical activity to promote healthy lifestyles. By teaching children about how to adequately take care of themselves and how to make healthy choices, public health officials can lower the incidence of obesity among this population as they get older and eventually diminish this epidemic from the American population.

The LEAP Ahead Program: Live Happily, Eat Healthily, Actively Learn, and be Physically Fit

An intervention that would help reduce the incidence of childhood obesity would be a program that addresses the issue, while constructively motivating children to live healthily. The LEAP Ahead program is meant to motivate children to maintain healthy lifestyles without feeling uncomfortable and ostracized. The various components of the program address public health issues, while incorporating social and environmental factors. Furthermore, when working with children, it is essential to make the program appealing in terms of enjoyment and simplicity. The LEAP Ahead program has components that include multiple areas of the school and range from classroom lessons and exercises to more rigorous physical education programs and more nutritious meal options in the cafeterias. Similar to the LEAP Ahead program is the Planet Health Intervention, which was successfully applied in school settings and provides evidence that school-based approaches are effective in preventing or reducing obesity among schoolchildren (30). The LEAP Ahead Program is meant to be implemented at the school level so that its components fit into the academic curriculum and the physical education and recreational departments. This intervention is intended to enhance the school environment and make it more conducive to healthy living.

Live Happily: Promoting Self-Efficacy

The Live Happily part of the intervention promotes positive self images and boosts the self-esteem of young children. As a supplement to the academic curriculum in the schools, this program will have students do leadership building workshops, teamwork exercises, and personal discovery projects. Each week, teachers will dedicate one part of their lesson to working with their students and helping them build up character and self-esteem. Activities will include creative writing, leadership seminars, and trust building games. Health models look at communities as experts and in this case, it is the schoolchildren that understand what appeals to them and what influences their decisions (15). Giving them the right to make their own decisions and engage in the LEAP Ahead program with their peers will lead to a higher percentage of schoolchildren making positive decisions to change their behavior. A result of this part of the intervention will be the creation of self-efficacy among the schoolchildren.

Promoting a positive self image and creating self-efficacy among schoolchildren is a key component of this intervention because it is the foundation required to motivate a change in behavior (27). Empowering young children and making them feel like they have the ability to make positive health decisions makes the other components of this intervention more feasible. With self-efficacy in place, schoolchildren can make decisions about improving their dietary intake and physical fitness (4). They will feel empowered and realize that they are capable of taking on challenges and living happy and healthy lives.

Eat Healthily: Framing Obesity in a Way that Stimulates Balanced Diets

Using the school lunch program, the Eat Healthily component of the intervention can have the school cafeterias offer well balanced meals to the students during lunch time. One major component of this will be to eliminate sugar sweetened beverages from the menu, especially since significant data suggests that these drinks are linked to obesity in children (33). Instead, there can be an increased emphasis on offering high quality food that is both appetizing and nutritious. Students will be each asked to keep a food journal, students will record what they eat and when both during and outside the school day. Based on the nutritional value and the appropriate quantity, which would be determined off the daily 2,000 calorie diet, students will receive points for healthy eating. The scoring will range from 0-5000 calories. Points will not be given and may even be deducted for students with too few or too many calories. At the end of each month, any student with a score between 1500-2500 will receive a prize as well as a commendation from the principal. Students consistently performing well will be given a special award at the end of the academic year.

This intervention frames obesity as a challenge. Students are challenged to eat healthy food and no child is framed to be a failure if they do not have the recommended calorie intake. Instead, they are invited to participate in the challenge the following month. Since the target population is schoolchildren, the intervention is framed in a way that they will be receptive to. Most children are inspired by challenges and become competitive when asked to complete a task with their peers (30). Unlike the Weight Report Cards, this LEAP Ahead intervention is aimed at empowering children without explicitly segregating children by weight. This is a key issue as weight discrimination has been noted to be as harmful as racial discrimination among individuals (34). Racism has implications of causing disparities in health care and causes stress among individuals that lead to more complicated medical issues (42). Similarly, the stigma and stress associated with weight discrimination can lead to a faster onset of weight related health disorders as well as more sever cases of obesity.

Actively Learn: Create an Intention to Change Behavior

The way interventions can create an intention to change behavior is by addressing the perceived susceptibility and perceived severity related to a behavior that is meant to be changed (15). For children, perceived susceptibility may not be as apparent since they may not be aware of the health issues associated with poor diet and obesity. It is essential to educate schoolchildren about risks associated with unhealthy eating patterns and lack of exercise. By going over the health risks and impairments associated with obesity, schoolchildren will be more inclined to want to take care of themselves since they will better understand the perceived severity associated with unhealthy lifestyles. As a result, they will be more receptive toward the LEAP Ahead program, which provides the dietary and physical activity aspects that will be emphasized in this part of the intervention. The Actively Learn part of the intervention will become a component of the health studies already built into the curriculum. Teachers will go over what it means to be obese and how students can avoid this health issue and maintain healthy lives.

Oftentimes, television is a method used by public health interventions to target youth and adolescent populations (38). However, it is very difficult to create an intention to change the behavior of watching television to becoming more active by simply airing something on the television for a few seconds (39). Instead, interventions created to target obesity must be consistent with the core values of being healthy and should provide visible and tangible alternatives to the sedentary lifestyle adopted by a majority of American youth. Evidence of this is provided by the Eat Well and Keep Moving Program, which effectively improved the dietary intake and reduced the amount of television watched by schoolchildren (40). The LEAP Ahead program incorporates this educational component of the program to not only raise awareness, but to also provide ready to use solutions to the problem.

Be Physically Fit: Framing Obesity in a Way that Stimulates Exercise

One of the major goals of the LEAP Ahead program is to make schoolchildren physically fit. The Be Physically Fit component of the intervention is meant to go hand in hand with the physical education department in the school. The school will be asked to implement a fitness program that consists of fun activities that target the major body systems, such as games that promote cardiovascular exercises. The activities will be varied and offered in random orders so that they keep the schoolchildren engaged and allow them to have fun while exercising. Unlike the Weight Report Cards, which created programs just for the obese children, the LEAP Ahead intervention offers this program to all of the students and is inclusive of all children. Thus, obesity is not being framed as problem for only a fraction of the children; instead, obesity is framed as a problem that everyone may be at risk for if they do not participate in exercises to improve their fitness.

Having this intervention in a school based setting allows students to embrace the program in a setting they are familiar with. When dealing with weight, framing this issue is very important. Since the topic is highly sensitive, it must be portrayed in a way that is respectful of emotions; if not, it can lead to unhealthy and disordered eating patterns among children. A study done by the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine at the Children's Hospital in Boston provided evidence that school-based interventions can both prevent obesity and reduce the incidence of eating disorders (38). In addition to this, making the intervention become part of the school day as a supplement to either recess or physical education reduces stigma attached to participating in fitness routines; instead, it transforms into something fun that schoolchildren want to engage in with their friends.

Weight Report Cards vs. LEAP Ahead

Although Weight Report Cards and LEAP Ahead are both interventions that are school-based and aimed at preventing obesity, they have key differences in their layout and implementation. Many of the successful behavior change models in public health have the component of self-efficacy (15). Studies have also shown that self-efficacy is needed to ensure the success of weight loss and healthy lifestyle programs (4). The LEAP Ahead program makes schoolchildren feel like they are capable to make choices that will lead to healthy lifestyles. Further, the promotion of self-efficacy is essential for the other components of the program, while require the student to make the right choices and take on the challenge to be healthy and physically fit. In addition to this, behavior change models state that there must be an intention to change before an individual changes his/her behavior. Also, other models show how social factors also impact whether or not an action will be carried out (15). Unlike the Weight Report Cards, the LEAP Ahead program goes beyond singling out obese children and challenges all of the students to excel in each of the components of the intervention without attaching any stigma to the participants. Finally, the Weight Report Cards had a major flaw as framing the problem of obesity as the individual’s fault and making the obese children feel like failures (5). The LEAP Ahead program frames obesity as a problem that all of the schoolchildren are challenged to overcome by eating balanced diets, exercising regularly, and making healthy life decisions. Thus, with each of these improvements, the LEAP Ahead program is expected to have a greater success rate than the Weight Report Cards.

Conclusion

The problem of obesity affects people of all ages throughout the United States. There have been many interventions laid out to combat this problem. However, many of these interventions have not proven to be successful due to limitations in their layouts. Thus, new interventions must be constructed that take social and environmental factors into consideration and create programs that motivate participation among communities. The Weight Report Cards made an effort to reduce the incidence of obesity; however, due to its drawbacks, namely failing to take social theories into consideration, it was not a successful intervention. The LEAP Ahead program addresses all of these shortcomings and is structured so that schoolchildren become empowered to make healthy life decisions. Similar multi-faceted school-based interventions are feasible for implementation in public schools can lead to increased awareness and can reduce the cases of obesity (35).
REFERENCES

1. Barlow SE, Dietz WH. Obesity evaluation and treatment: expert committee recommendation, Pediatrics. 1998; 103, 3.

2. Blome, Ron. "NBC News." In Arkansas report card, F may stand for fat. NBC. 20 July 2004.

3. "Childhood and Teenage Obesity Intervention Strategies." ExRx (Exercise Prescription) on the Net. 29 Mar. 2009 .

4. Clark, M.M., Abrams, D.B., Niaura, R.S., Eaton, C.A. and Rossi, J.S., 1991. Self-efficacy in weight management. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59, pp. 739–744.

5. Donvan, John, and Katie Hinman. "Nightline." Weight Grade on Report Cards Angers Parents. ABC. 27 Aug. 2007.

6. Feldman, Donna. "Childhood Obesity: Do Children Need "Weight Report Cards"? | The Diet Channel." Weight Loss, Diets, Nutrition & Exercise at The Diet Channel. 05 Apr. 2009 .

7. Mitchell, Terence R., and Marilyn E. Gist. "Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability." Academy of Management 17 (1992): 183-211. JSTOR.

8. Pieper K, Barlow SE, et. al. Obesity and Kansas City Kids (2003 Conference), Reardon Convention Center, Kansas City, Kansas.

9. Robinson TN. Reducing children's television viewing to prevent obesity: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1999 Oct 27; 282(16):1561-7.

10. Skinner JD, Bounds W, Carruth BR, Ziegler P. Longitudinal calcium intake is negatively related to children's body fat indexes. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003 Dec;103(12):1626-31.

11. USDA (2005) Dietary Guidelines for Americans, vii-viii.

12. World Health Organization (2000) (PDF). Technical report series 894: Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic.

13. Framing Emotional Response, by Kimberly Gross and Lisa D'Ambrosio Political Psychology 2004 International Society of Political Psychology.

14. Lawrence, Regina G. "Framing Obesity." The Harvard International of Press/Politics 9 (2004).

15. Edberg, Mark Cameron. Essentials of Health Behavior : Social and Behavioral Theory in Public Health. New York: Jones & Bartlett, Incorporated, 2007.

16. Journal of the American Dietetic Association volume 104, Issue 3, March 2004, pages 341 - 344. "School health report cards attempt to address the obesity epidemic." Lee M. Scheier.

17. National Center for Health Statistics, Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among Adults: United States, 1999–2000 (2003) Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/obese/obse99.htm.

18. Hedley, AA, Ogden, CL, Johnson, CL, Carroll, MD, Curtin, LR, Flegal, KM. Overweight and obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999-2002. JAMA 291:2847-50. 2004.

19. V.R. Chomitz, J. Collins, J. Kim, E. Kramer and R. McGowan, Promoting healthy weight among elementary school children via a health report card approach, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 157 (2003), pp. 765–772.

20. N.F. Krebs and M.S. Jacobson, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. Prevention of Pediatric Overweight and Obesity, Pediatrics 112 (2003), pp. 424–430.

21. L. Scheier, Potential problems with school health report cards, J Am Diet Assoc (2004) (in press).

22. Center for Weight and Health at Berkeley, Guidelines for Collecting Heights and Weights on Children and Adolescents in School Settings (2003) Available at: http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/cwh/resources/childrenandweight.shtml.

23. K. Davis and K.K. Christoffel, Obesity in preschool and school-age children. Treatment early and often may be best, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 148 (1994), pp. 1257–1261.

24. R.C. Klesges, L.M. Klesges, L.H. Eck and M.L. Shelton, A longitudinal analysis of accelerated weight gain in preschool children, Pediatrics 95 (1995), pp. 126–130.

25. M. Briggs, S. Safaii and D. Lane Beall, Nutrition services: An essential component of comprehensive school health programs (2004) Available at: http://www.eatright.org/Member/PolicyInitiatives/8474_8243.cfm.

26. Berman, Erica S. "Eating Behaviors : The relationship between eating self-efficacy and eating disorder symptoms in a non-clinical sample." ScienceDirect. 08 Apr. 2009.

27. Clark, D.B. Abrams and R.S. Niaura, Self-efficacy in weight management, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59 (1991), pp. 739–744.

28. Strauss, Richard S. "Childhood Obesity and Self-Esteem." Pediatrics 15th ser. 105 (2000).

29. Whetstone, Lauren M., Susan L. Morrissey, and Doyle M. Cummings. "Children at Risk: The Association between Perceived Weight Status and Suicidal Thoughts and Attempts in Middle School Youth." Journal of School Health 77 (2007): 59-66.

30. Gortmaker SL, Peterson KE, Wiecha JL, Sobol AM, Dixit S, Fox MK, Laird N. Reducing obesity via a school-based interdisciplinary intervention among youth: Planet Health. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999 Apr; 153 (4): 409-18.

31. Wiecha JL, Sobol AM, Peterson KE, Gortmaker SL. Household television access: associations with screen time, reading and homework among youth. Ambulatory Pediatrics. 2001 Sept - Oct; 1(5): 244-251.

32. Austin SB, Gortmaker SL. Dieting and smoking initiation in early adolescent girls and boys: A prospective study. Am J Public Health. 2001 Mar; 91 (3): 446-50.

33. Ludwig DS, Peterson KE, Gortmaker SL. Relation between consumption of sugar sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: A prospective, observational analysis. Lancet. 2001 Feb 17; 357(9255):505-8.

34. Wang LY, Yang Q, Lowry R, Wechsler H. Economic Analysis of a School-Based Obesity Prevention Program. Obes Res. 2003 Nov; 11 (11): 1313-1324.

35. Wiecha JL, El Ayadi AM, Fuemmeler BF, Carter JE, Handler S, Johnson S, Strunk N, Korzek-Ramirez D, Gortmaker SL. Diffusion of an Integrated Health Education Program in an Urban School System: Planet Health. J Pediatr Psychol. 2004 Sept; 29: 467-474.

36. Cradock AL, Wiecha JL, Peterson KE, et al. Youth Recall and TriTrac Accelerometer Estimates of Physical Activity Levels. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Mar; 36 (3): 525-532.

37. Boynton-Jarrett R, Thomas TN, Peterson KE, et al. Impact of Television Viewing Patterns on Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Among Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2004 Dec; 112: 1321-1326.

38. Austin SB, Field E, Wiecha J, Peterson KE, Gortmaker S. The impact of a school-based obesity prevention trial on disordered weight-control behaviors in early adolescent girls. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005 Mar; 159(3):225-229.

39. Wiecha JL, Peterson KE, Ludwig DS, Kim J, Sobol A, Gortmaker SL.When Children Eat What They Watch: Impact of Television Viewing on Dietary Intake in Youth When Children Eat What They Watch. Arch Pediatr Adolec Med. 2006 Apr; 106(4): 436-42.

40. Gortmaker SL, Cheung LWY, Peterson KE, Chomitz G, Cradle JH, Fox MK, Bullock RB, Sobol AM, Colditz G, Field A, Laird N. Impact of a School-Based Interdisciplinary Intervention on Diet and Physical Activity Among Urban Primary School Children: Eat Well and Keep Moving. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1999; 153:975-83.

41. Chavarro JE, Peterson KE, Sobol AM, Wiecha JL, Gortmaker SL. Effects of a School-based Obesity-prevention Intervention on Menarche (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2005 Dec; 16(10):1245-52.

42. Brondolo, Elizabeth, Linda Gallo, and Hector Myers. "Race, racism and health: disparities, mechanisms, and interventions." Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

43. Carter J, Wiecha J, Peterson K, Gortmaker S. Planet Health: An Interdisciplinary Curriculum for Teaching Middle School Nutrition and Physical Activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 2001.

Prenatal Breastfeeding Education: An Examination of Why Education Does Not Work In All Circumstances and a Proposed Intervention -Michelle O’Brien

As a maternal child health care provider and a public health practitioner, I am very interested in interventions aimed at increasing breastfeeding rates and longevity. At Boston Medical Center, a Baby Friendly hospital, we have many different interventions intended to impact breastfeeding rates. The Department of Pediatrics’ Adolescent Health Center Teen and Tot Program offers prenatal education classes for pregnant teenagers. The prenatal classes consist of a two hour session, once a week for ten weeks. The classes cover many important topics such as mind and body changes during pregnancy, common complications of pregnancy, family planning, child development, and newborn care. Breastfeeding is covered in one session, along with maternal nutrition, in the third week. The focus of the breastfeeding portion of the session is on the reasons to breastfeed, nutritional information about breastfeeding and resources to help with breastfeeding. There is no further mention of breastfeeding in the remaining seven weeks of classes. This is typical of most prenatal education classes as there is a lot to be covered in a short amount of time.
I will critique this intervention by focusing on the three most common mistakes made by healthcare professionals and health educators when creating and teaching prenatal breastfeeding education; over-reliance on the Health Belief Model, lack of focus on the needs of the intended audience and poor timing of the intervention.
Concept #1 - The Health Belief Model: “Breast is Best”
Many interventions in modern, Western medicine have a basis in the Health Belief Model. Doctors and other healthcare professionals use facts and data as the foundation of all that they do during their training years. They learn to trust knowledge and feel safe within the constructs of the Health Belief Model. Therefore, many of their interventions are linked to this model. However, there are many flaws with this theory, particularly when applied to the choice to breastfeed or formula feed.
Irrational behavior
The Health Belief Model is anchored in the belief that when presented with information about a desired behavior, the target audience will weigh the risks and benefits of adopting that behavior and make a rational choice. This has been proven to be untrue when applied to decision making regarding infant feeding (breast vs. formula). When questioned about the benefits of breast milk over formula, most women acknowledge the superiority of human milk over formula (1, 2). When asked specifically about the benefits of breast milk, the women are able to identify that breast milk has nutritional benefits over formula, that it can protect babies against disease, that breast milk is involved in both physical and psychological development of the child and that the act of breastfeeding creates a special bond between mother and child (1). In a study examining the reasons for infant feeding choices, this was true of both formula feeding and breastfeeding mothers. Women that had chosen to bottle feed acknowledged the advantages of breast milk over formula, although overall the difference between their ratings of breast milk over formula were smaller than for breastfeeding mothers (1). When looking at the decision making based on this information alone, it seems that prenatal education has been successful in educating the mothers on the benefits of breastfeeding but that this was not influential in the decision making in a large number of women. Another strategy used within the Health Belief Model when persuading women to breastfeed is an economic argument. Formula is very expensive when compared to breast milk. In the same study, women acknowledged the higher cost of formula but in women that chose to formula feed, the cost was not influential in their decision making (1). This is even more striking when you realize that the women sampled in this study were primarily low-income. One might even say it seems a bit irrational.
We are not all the same
Prenatal education as an intervention for breastfeeding assumes that all women will seek out information on breastfeeding. A sociodemographic difference in the women who attend childbirth preparation or prenatal education courses (3) has an impact on the overall effectiveness of this particular intervention, with poor minority women less likely to enroll in classes. For the women who do attend classes, use of the Health Belief Model assumes that they are all at the same level of education, have the same values and beliefs as each other and the health care providers and have the same support systems in place. Many prenatal education courses also assume that the baby is central to the decision regarding feeding methods. Research studies show that this is often not the case. There are other factors that supersede the needs of the baby; including perceived convenience of formula feeding over breastfeeding, feeling “tied down” with breastfeeding and pressures from family, significant others and friends to allow them to help feed the baby (1-2, 4). Women who are working or in school may not feel they have the time or a place to breastfeed or pump (1, 5). All these factors contribute to women rejecting the “facts” that they learn in the classes in making their infant feeding decisions.
Concept #2 - Know your audience: The teen mother
There are many studies that show that adolescents learn differently than adults and that their decision-making capacity is influenced by much different factors. In reference to breastfeeding, it is well known that teenagers are least likely to initiate breastfeeding and more likely to discontinue early (2, 4, 6-10). So breastfeeding interventions geared towards adolescents need to focus on the special needs and characteristics of their target audience.
Learning is boring
Most adolescent mothers are not interested in didactic education sessions. In order to keep their interest and attention, the educator needs to be creative. A program in Florida (11) utilized games to teach the adolescents about breastfeeding; a word search with common breastfeeding terms, “condom breasts” to demonstrate latch while also addressing safe sex issues, Breastfeeding Bingo and group activities such as “You Solve It” and Baby Boob Jeopardy. This adolescent-focused intervention showed a significant increase in breastfeeding initiation (65.1%) in comparison to girls who received “standard” breastfeeding education (14.6%). The typical prenatal education class is similar to a health class lecture. The teacher or educator imparts knowledge to the learner (adolescent mother) and allows time for questions at the end. More interactive learning is ideal in this age group particularly when addressing subjects that can be identified as embarrassing.
It’s Embarrassing
Adolescent mothers are more likely to cite embarrassment as the primary reason for not breastfeeding (2, 4). Prenatal education classes infrequently address the issues faced by adolescent mothers who are just becoming comfortable with the changes in their maturing bodies but do not yet have the mental maturity to assimilate breastfeeding and the purpose of breasts in infant feeding with their daily lives. When you add in the cultural context of sexuality and breasts found in this country (12), it is often too much for an immature mind to process without the proper support and guidance.
‘They” Don’t Want Me To
Not surprisingly, adolescent mothers are much more sensitive to the viewpoints of the people closest to them when making their infant feeding choices. The teens’ mothers are often the most influential in their decisions regarding infant feeding (2, 4) even if they don’t have a good relationship with their mother (2). Since most adolescent mothers still live with their parents, the maternal grandmother (of the infant) will shape her daughter’s decision based on her own experiences with breastfeeding and how involved she is with the care of the infant (ie Is she taking the “mother” role?) (2). If the mother’s mother will be assuming a large portion of the care duties (for instance, when the mother returns to school) she may be more likely to discourage the mother from breastfeeding so she can easily feed the infant with a bottle. The father of the baby also has significant influence on the decision of feeding method (2, 4). He may feel left out if the mother exclusively breastfeeds or may attach a sexual connotation to her breasts. A single two hour class on breastfeeding cannot even begin to address the influences of the mother (of the teen mother) and the father of the baby nor include them in any meaningful dialogue. As is common in individual based public health interventions, prenatal education classes do not always consider the greater context of the relationships and environment that the intended audience lives and works within.
Concept #3 - Timing is everything: Too little, too late
Finally, this intervention does not take into account the time needed to make a decision as complex as whether or not to breastfeed. A single two hour class does not do justice to the multitude of factors that play a part in each individual woman’s decision making process. As has been addressed in previous sections of this paper, pregnant teens are faced with many competing factors as well as dealing with pregnancy and impending motherhood. If an intervention truly intends to increase breastfeeding initiation, it needs to be more of a continuous ongoing intervention.
Most prenatal education classes take place in the seventh to eighth months of pregnancy. Studies have shown that in order to be effective breastfeeding interventions need to start much earlier (4, 11), perhaps even in schools before the teens are even pregnant (11). Breastfeeding presented in health class as a natural, normal way to feed your baby begins to lay the foundation for a different societal view of breastfeeding.
In summary, the Adolescent Center’s prenatal breastfeeding education intervention is less than ideal for many reasons. As demonstrated by the evidence cited, the decision whether to breastfeed or not is usually not a rational decision. Use of the Health Belief Model in breastfeeding promotion is misguided as it is in most public health intervention. Despite the fact the critiqued program is occurring within an Adolescent Center, they fail to consider the special needs of their population when approaching breastfeeding promotion. Innovative teaching methods are necessary to get the attention of the adolescent mind and the support people (mother, partner) need to be more integrated into the intervention beyond “inviting” them to attend classes. More thought should be put into the timing of breastfeeding interventions and collaborative efforts with the school systems should be explored.
A potential intervention that addresses the weaknesses of the Adolescent Center’s prenatal breastfeeding education class is one that I proposed in MC820 Planning and Program Development in Maternal and Child Health. This intervention combines several models of public health and healthcare interventions. The cornerstone of the intervention is an innovative model for prenatal care called CenteringPregnancy®. Developed by Sharon Schindler Rising, CNM, CenteringPregnancy® is group prenatal care which utilizes the power of self-empowerment and community to increase patient satisfaction, improve perinatal outcomes and increase breastfeeding rates (13, 14). A group of 10-12 women with similar due dates receive all their prenatal care in a group that is consistent throughout the nine months. Together the women teach and learn from each other, with guidance from a trained medical professional.
My intervention adds a hands-on breastfeeding education component to CenteringPregnancy® that starts at the very beginning of prenatal care, occurs at each visit and happens in the group setting. This breastfeeding education allows women to practice breastfeeding techniques with life size dolls and cloth breast models, visualize the size of a newborn’s stomach and discuss what to expect in the first couple days to weeks of breastfeeding. While there would be some teaching about the benefits of breast milk and why it is the ideal nutrition for newborns, this would not be the core of the breastfeeding education curriculum. A certified lactation consultant would participate in the design of the curriculum and would help the health care providers in demonstrating and problem solving with the women.
Previously, I discussed some of the limitations of other breastfeeding promotion interventions. This intervention directly addresses the weaknesses of the previous model; over-reliance on the Health Belief Model, lack of focus on the needs of the intended audience and poor timing of the intervention.
Concept #1 Redo - The Health Belief Model: “Breast is Best”
A skill based, hands on intervention does not rely on the concepts of the Health Belief Model. The Health Belief Model relies on presenting the target subject(s) with information and facts and trusting that these subjects will make rational decisions based on this information. The proposed intervention allows for the practice of techniques with props, while in a group setting where they can watch other women doing the same and learning from each other about what does and does not work. It gives women practical skills, not just facts. There is not so much a process of weighing the risks and benefits of the information gained as the achievement of skills that may or may not be utilized depending on the woman’s intentions regarding breastfeeding. By allowing the women to practice and consider the implications of breastfeeding beyond nutrition for the baby, it makes it more concrete and allows them to make a decision that works best for them. This type of learning has been found to be effective in several studies (15-18). And while this does have some foundation in Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (19), the limitations of this model are mitigated by the second portion of the intervention, the Centering® model.
The CenteringPregnancy® portion of the intervention uses social network theory. Social network theory describes the power that a group that is tied to each other in a social manner can influence and affect behavior of individuals in the group. By sharing an important time in their life with other women going through the same experience, the women involved in Centering® form strong relationships within the social network of the group. The healthcare provider participates as a member of the group, facilitating but not leading discussion or lecturing. So often the “answers” or proposed behavior changes are suggested by other members of the group and not necessarily by the authority figure of the healthcare provider. The type of group care in a Centering model is also contrary to the Health Belief Model because it is not a one size fits all approach. The conduct within the group is centered on every participant having an equal say, and while the care is done in a group, it is individualized for each woman. My proposed intervention would build on that. While the activities presented would be similar, each woman could choose to focus on what is most important to her and her needs.
Concept #2 Redo - Know your audience: The teen mother
Teenagers would be the ideal group of women for this intervention. First of all the hands-on, practical aspects of the intervention would appeal to many adolescents. It is often embarrassing for young women to talk about breasts, due to the sexualization of the breasts by our society. By getting comfortable with the cloth breasts and the baby models, teenage mothers are more likely to feel a little less embarrassed and self-conscious about trying breastfeeding when the time comes. As mentioned previously, it has been found that adolescents learn better when the information is presented in a creative or interactive way (11).
CenteringPregnancy® has been found to be very effective with adolescents (14). The model is aimed at empowering the women to take control of their health care and their bodies by allowing them to be actively involved in self care and other healthcare activities. This empowerment helps adolescent mothers have confidence in their decisions for themselves and their babies. The influence of the adolescent’s mother or the father of the baby on the young mother’s feeding decision lessens when she feels that she has control over her body and health. Many CenteringPregnancy® groups include support people in each session so they have the opportunity to hear the same information, hear what other fathers or grandmothers are saying about breastfeeding and bottle feeding.
The Centering® model has some elements of diffusion of innovation theory. Teens are very much influenced by leaders or innovators. Often they follow or imitate unhealthy or destructive behaviors. With CenteringPregnancy®, these young women see that it can be “cool” to take care of your body, to have respect for yourself and the decisions you make.
Concept #3 Redo - Timing is everything: Too little, too late
The proposed intervention would begin early in pregnancy. It would be a component of each group prenatal visit. Early introduction of breastfeeding interventions and support has been shown to be effective (4,11). By using the ideas presented in framing theory, breastfeeding preparation is reframed to become a part of normal prenatal care. By addressing breastfeeding and breastfeeding preparation at each prenatal visit, the concept becomes as normal and routine as a weight or blood pressure check. Because of the marketing of formula and even promotion of formula feeding by health care providers in this country, breastfeeding is often viewed as “extra” or something special that only some mothers do. Incorporating it into the usual prenatal routine helps send the message that breastfeeding is normal and natural.
Conclusion
While breastfeeding is not for everyone, more efforts need to be made in the clinical and public health arenas to better prepare women for breastfeeding, allow them the opportunity to experience the “process” of breastfeeding before the baby is born and normalize breastfeeding a natural and healthy choice for women and their babies. I propose that my intervention is just one way that this could be accomplished but does have the potential to work particularly well in a pregnant adolescent population.

REFERENCES
1. Zimmerman DJ, Guttman N. “Breast Is Best”: Knowledge Among Low- Income Mothers Is Not Enough. Journal of Human Lactation 2001; 17:14-19.
2. Morrison L, Reza A, Cardines K, Foutch- Chew K, Severance C. Determinants of Infant-Feeding Choice Among Young Women in Hilo, Hawaii. Healthcare for Women International 2008; 29(8):807-825.
3. Lu MC, Prentice J, Yu SM, Inkelas M, Lange MO, Halfon N. Childbirth Education Classes: Sociodemographic Disparities in Attendance and the Association of Attendance with Breastfeeding Initiation. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2003; 7(2):87-93.
4. Ineichen B, Pierce M, Lawrenson R. Teenage mothers as breastfeeders: attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Adolescence 1997; 20:505-509.
5. Johnston, ML, Esposito N. Barriers and Facilitators for Breastfeeding Among Working Women in the United States. JOGNN 2007; 36(1):9-20.
6. Hannon PR, Willis SK, Bishop-Townsend V, Martinez IM, Scrimshaw SC. African American and Latina Adolescent Mothers’ Infant Feeding Decisions and Breastfeeding Practices: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Adolescent Health 2000; 26:399-407.
7. Benson S. Adolescent mothers’ experience of parenting and breastfeeding:
A descriptive study. Breast Rev. 1996; 4:19-27.
8. Robinson J, Hunt A, Pope J, Garner B. Attitudes toward infant feeding
among adolescent mothers from northern Louisiana. J Am Diet Assoc.
1993; 93:1311-1313.
9. Reifsnider E, Eckhart D. Prenatal breastfeeding education: It’s effect on
breastfeeding among WIC participants. Journal of Human Lactation 1997; 13:121-126.
10. Maehr J, Lizarraga J, Wingard D, Felice M. A comparative study of adolescent and adult mothers who intend to breastfeed. Journal of Adolescent Health 1993; 14:453-457.
11. Volpe EM, Bear M. Enhanced Breastfeeding Initiation in Adolescent Mothers Through the Breastfeeding Educated and Supported Teen (BEST) Club. Journal of Human Lactation 2000; 16(3):196-200.
12. Rodriguez-Garcia R, Frazier L. Cultural Paradoxes Relating to Sexuality and Breastfeeding. Journal of Human Lactation 1995; 11(2):11-115.
13. Massey Z, Schindler Rising S, Ickovics J. CenteringPregnancy Group Prenatal Care: Promoting Relationship-Centered Care. JOGNN 2006; 35(2): 286-294.
14. Grady MA, Bloom KC. Pregnancy Outcomes of Adolescents Enrolled in a CenteringPregnancy Program. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health 2004; 49(5): 412-420.
15. Chezem JC, Freisen C & Boettcher J. Breastfeeding knowledge, breastfeeding confidence, and infant feeding plans: Effects on actual feeding practices. JOGNN. 2003; 32:40-47.
16. Hartley BM & O’Connor ME. Evaluation of the ‘Best Start’ breast-feeding education program. Archives of the Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 1996; 50:868-871.
17. Kistin N, Abramson R & Dublin P. Effect of peer counselors on breastfeeding initiation, exclusivity, and duration among low-income urban women. Journal of Human Lactation. 1990, 10(1):11-16.
18. Zimmerman DR. You can make a difference: Increasing breastfeeding rates in an inner city clinic. Journal of Human Lactation. 1999; 15:217-220.
19. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review; 1977, 84:191-215.