Skip to main content Accessibility help

A mixed-methods evaluation using low-income adult Georgians’ experience with a smartphone-based eLearning nutrition education programme

  • Sarah Stotz (a1), Jung Sun Lee (a1) and Jori Hall (a2)



To understand low-income adults’ expectations and experiences using an innovative smartphone and theory-based eLearning nutrition education programme, entitled Food eTalk.


Longitudinal mixed-methods single case study including a series of focus group and individual interviews, demographic and Internet habits surveys, and user-tracking data. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, analysed using the constant comparative method and digitalized using Atlas.ti. Descriptive statistics were analysed for demographics and user-tracking data.


Community-based locations including libraries, public housing complexes, schools, safety-net clinics and food pantries.


Low-income Georgian adults aged ≥18 years (n 64), USA.


Participants found Food eTalk easy to navigate and better designed than expected. Primary themes were twofold: (i) motivation to engage in eLearning may be a formidable barrier to Food eTalk’s success but improved programme content, format and external incentives could mitigate this barrier; and (ii) applying knowledge to change nutrition-related behaviour is challenging. To encourage engagement in eLearning nutrition education, programme format should highlight interactive games, videos, be short in length, and feature content that is relevant and important from the perspective of the priority audience. Examples of these topics include quick and easy recipes, chronic disease-specific diet information and tips to feed ‘picky’ children. Additionally, external incentives may help mitigate barriers to healthful eating behaviour and increase engagement in the programme.


The findings suggest eLearning nutrition education programmes are best designed to match low-income adults’ typical smartphone habits, include content considered particularly relevant by the intended audience and highlight solutions to barriers to healthful eating.


Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email


Hide All
1. Smith, A & Page, D (2015) US Smartphone Use in 2015. Pew Research Center Report. (accessed July 2018).
2. Perrin, A & Duggan, M (2015) Americans’ Internet Access: 2000–2015. Pew Research Center Report. (accessed July 2018).
3. Neuenschwander, LM, Abbott, A & Mobley, AR (2012) Assessment of low-income adults’ access to technology: implications for nutrition education. J Nutr Educ Behav 44, 6065.
4. Swindle, TM, Ward, WL, Whiteside-Mansell, L et al. (2014) Technology use and interest among low-income parents of young children: differences by age group and ethnicity. J Nutr Educ Behav 46, 484490.
5. Lohse, B, Rifkin, R, Arnold, K et al. (2012) A digital program informs low-income caregivers of preschool-age children about family meals. J Nutr Educ Behav 44, 256261.
6. Bensley, RJ, Anderson, JV, Brusk, JJ et al. (2011) Impact of internet vs traditional Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children nutrition education on fruit and vegetable intake. J Am Diet Assoc 111, 749755.
7. Alexander, GL, McClure, JB, Calvi, JH et al. (2010) A randomized clinical trial evaluating online interventions to improve fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Public Health 100, 319326.
8. Winett, R, Anderson, E, Wojcik, J et al. (2007) Guide to health: a randomized controlled trial of the effects of a completely web-based intervention on physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and body weight. Ann Behav Med 33, 251261.
9. Neuenschwander, LM, Abbott, A & Mobley, AR (2013) Comparison of a web-based vs in-person nutrition education program for low-income adults. J Acad Nutr Diet 113, 120126.
10. Lohse, B, Belue, R, Smith, S et al. (2015) About eating: an online program with evidence of increased food resource management skills for low-income women. J Nutr Educ Behav 47, 265272.
11. Au, LE, Whaley, S, Gurzo, K et al. (2017) Evaluation of online and in-person nutrition education related to salt knowledge and behaviors among Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Participants. J Acad Nutr Diet 117, 1384–1295.
12. Au, LE, Whaley, S, Rosen, NJ et al. (2016) Online and in-person nutrition education improves breakfast knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors: a randomized trial of participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. J Acad Nutr Diet 116, 490500.
13. Au, LE, Whaley, S, Gurzo, K et al. (2016) If you build it they will come: satisfaction of WIC participants with online and traditional in-person nutrition education. J Nutr Educ Behav 48, 336342.e1.
14. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2016) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP-Ed). (accessed December 2016).
15. US Department of Agriculture (2016) The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-ED) Framework and Interpretive Guide. (accessed July 2018).
16. Baker, S, Auld, G, MacKinnon, C et al. (2014) Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences. (accessed July 2018).
17. Stake, RE (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
18. Yin, R (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
19. Harris, JE, Gleason, PM, Sheean, PM et al. (2009) An introduction to qualitative research for food and nutrition professionals. J Am Diet Assoc 109, 8090.
20. Roulston, K (2010) Reflective Interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
21. Patton, MQ (1980) Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
22. Stotz, S, Lee, JS, Rong, H et al. (2017) The feasibility of an eLearning nutrition education program for low-income individuals. Health Promot Pract 18, 150157.
23. Hanula, GM (2009) Evaluation of a community nutrition intervention to decrease hypertension risk. PhD Thesis, University of Georgia.
24. Janz, N & Becker, M (1984) The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ Behav 11, 147.
25. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (2003) Your Guide to Lowering Blood Pressure. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
26. Stotz, S & Lee, JS (2018) Development of an online smartphone-based eLearning nutrition education program for low-income individuals. J Nutr Educ Behav 50, 90–95.e1.
27. Driscoll, M (1994) Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
28. Charmaz, K (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
29. Saldaña, J (2012) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
30. Paulus, T, Lester, J & Deptster, P (2014) Digital Tools for Qualitative Research, 1st ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
31. Madden, M (2013) Technology use by different income groups. (accessed August 2015).
32. Dillard, A (2012) Mobile Instructional Design Principles for Adult Learners. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon; available at
33. Brusk, JJ & Bensley, RJ (2016) A comparison of mobile and fixed device access on user engagement associated with Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) online nutrition education. JMIR Res Protoc 5, e216.
34. Weinstein, E, Galindo, RJ, Fried, M et al. (2014) Impact of a focused nutrition educational intervention coupled with improved access to fresh produce on purchasing behavior and consumption of fruits and vegetables in overweight patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Educ 40, 100106.



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed