Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Understanding the factors influencing low-income caregivers’ perceived value of a federal nutrition programme, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

  • Summer Joy Weber (a1), Jana Wichelecki (a2), Noel Chavez (a3), Stephanie Bess (a4), LaShon Reese (a4) and Angela Odoms-Young (a2)...

Abstract

Objective

Retention of participants has been an issue in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). It has been suggested that the perceived value of WIC may affect whether participants remain in the programme. The present study aimed to explore this phenomenon.

Design

Using a constructivist approach, thirty-one individual in-depth interviews were conducted. Transcripts were analysed using constant comparative analysis. Social, cultural and environmental factors that contribute to the value of WIC were explored as the phenomenon of interest.

Setting

Eight WIC clinics across the State of Illinois, USA.

Participants

Thirty-one caregivers of children enrolled in WIC for at least 6 months.

Results

Several factors influenced perceived value of WIC at the interpersonal (level of social support), clinic (value of WIC services v. programme administration issues), vendor (shopping difficulties), community and systems levels (other programme use, stigma and restrictions on food choice). Other themes existed along continua, which overlapped several levels (continuum of perceived need and perceived value of infant formula).

Conclusions

Many caregivers value WIC, especially before their child turns 1 year old. Improvements are needed at the clinic, during shopping and within the food packages themselves in order to increase perceived value of WIC.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email summer.weber@vumc.org

References

Hide All
1. Oliveira, V & Frazao, E (2015) The WIC program: background, trends, and economic issues, 2015 edition. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=43927 (accessed June 2018).
2. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Food Programs Division (2018) WIC food packages: maximum monthly allowances. https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-packages-maximum-monthly-allowances (accessed August 2018).
3. Tester, JM, Leung, CW & Crawford, PB (2016) Revised WIC food package and children’s diet quality. Pediatrics 137, e20153557.
4. Whaley, SE, Ritchie, LD, Spector, P et al. (2012) Revised WIC food package improves diets of WIC families. J Nutr Educ Behav 44, 204209.
5. Metallinos-Katsaras, E, Gorman, KS, Wilde, P et al. (2011) A longitudinal study of WIC participation on household food insecurity. Matern Child Health J 15, 627633.
6. Sonchak, L (2016) The impact of WIC on birth outcomes: new evidence from South Carolina. Matern Child Health J 20, 15181525.
7. Thomas, TN, Kolasa, MS, Zhang, F et al. (2014) Assessing immunization interventions in the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. Am J Prev Med 47, 624628.
8. Jacknowitz, A & Tiehen, L (2010) WIC participation patterns: an investigation of delayed entry and early exit. https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.ers.usda.gov/media/134411/err109.pdf (accessed June 2018).
9. Martinez-Schiferl, M, Zedlewski, S & Giannarelli, L (2013) National and state-level estimates of special supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) eligibles and program reach, 2010. https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/WICEligibles2010Vol1.pdf (accessed April 2018).
10. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2014) Summary of WIC state agency strategies for increasing child retention July 2014. https://wicworks.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/ChildRetentionStrategiesReport.pdf (accessed June 2018).
11. Patton, MQ (2014) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
12. Schwandt, TA (1994) Constructivist, interpretive approaches to human inquiry. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 118137 [NK Denzin and YS Lincoln, editors]. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
13. Uesugi, K, Porter, SJ, Reese, L et al. (2014) Healthcare professionals’ attitudes and knowledge about the WIC program: implications for promoting partnerships among WIC stakeholders. J Nutr Educ Behav 46, Suppl. 4, S158.
14. Devine, CM, Jastran, M, Jabs, J et al. (2006) A lot of sacrifices: work–family spillover and the food choice coping strategies of low-wage employed parents. Soc Sci Med 63, 25912603.
15. Jabs, J, Devine, CM, Bisogni, CA et al. (2007) Trying to find the quickest way: employed mothers’ constructions of time for food. J Nutr Educ Behav 239, 1825.
16. Corbin, J & Strauss, A (2014) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
17. Gough, B & Conner, MT (2006) Barriers to healthy eating amongst men: a qualitative analysis. Soc Sci Med 62, 387395.
18. Thomas, EL, Puig Ribera, A, Senye-Mir, A et al. (2016) Promoting healthy choices in workplace cafeterias: a qualitative study. J Nutr Educ Behav 48, 138145.
19. McLeroy, KR, Bibeau, D, Steckler, A et al. (1988) An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q 15, 351377.
20. Weber, S, Uesugi, K, Greene, H et al. (2018) Preferences and perceived value of WIC foods among WIC caregivers. J Nutr Educ Behav 50, 695704.
21. Fischer, TP & Olson, BH (2014) A qualitative study to understand cultural factors affecting a mother’s decision to breast or formula feed. J Hum Lact 30, 209216.
22. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Supplemental Food Programs Division (2016) WIC breastfeeding data local agency report FY 2015. https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/wic/FY%202015%20BFDLA%20Report.pdf (accessed April 2018).
23. Dunn, RL, Kalich, KA, Fedrizzi, R et al. (2015) Barriers and contributors to breastfeeding in WIC mothers: a social ecological perspective. Breastfeed Med 10, 493501.
24. Woelfel, ML, Abusabha, R, Pruzek, R et al. (2004) Barriers to the use of WIC services. J Am Diet Assoc 104, 736743.
25. Deehy, K, Hoger, FS, Kallio, J et al. (2010) Participant-centered education: building a new WIC nutrition education model. J Nutr Educ Behav 42, 3 Suppl., S39S46.
26. Isbell, MG, Seth, JG, Atwood, RD et al. (2014) A client-centered nutrition education model: lessons learned from Texas WIC. J Nutr Educ Behav 46, 5461.
27. Ritchie, LD, Whaley, SE & Crocker, NJ (2014) Satisfaction of California WIC participants with food package changes. J Nutr Educ Behav 46, 3 Suppl., S71S78.
28. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services (2018) State agency detail EBT status report. https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/wic/January2017EBTDetailStatusReport.pdf (accessed June 2018).
29. Pomeranz, JL & Chriqui, JF (2015) The supplemental nutrition assistance program: analysis of program administration and food law definitions. Am J Prev Med 49, 428436.
30. Adedze, P, Chapman-Novakofski, K, Witz, K et al. (2011) Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about nutrition and childhood overweight among WIC participants. Fam Community Health 34, 301310.
31. Lawrence, W & Barker, M (2009) A review of factors affecting the food choices of disadvantaged women. Proc Nutr Soc 68, 189194.
32. Bertmann, FM, Barroso, C, Ohri-Vachaspati, P et al. (2014) Women, infants, and children cash value voucher (CVV) use in Arizona: a qualitative exploration of barriers and strategies related to fruit and vegetable purchases. J Nutr Educ Behav 46, 3 Suppl., S53S58.
33. Kim, LP, Whaley, SE, Gradziel, PH et al. (2013) Mothers prefer fresh fruits and vegetables over jarred baby fruits and vegetables in the new special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children food package. J Nutr Educ Behav 45, 723727.
34. Dammann, KW & Smith, C (2010) Race, homelessness, and other environmental factors associated with the food-purchasing behavior of low-income women. J Am Diet Assoc 110, 13511356.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Weber et al. supplementary material
Weber et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (16 KB)
16 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

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